NationStates Jolt Archive

On the shallow end of this argument, we have seatbelt laws, laws against things like tobacco and marijuana, ect. In the deeper end we have pretty much all drug laws, laws to stop a person from comitting suicide, ect. Should the government ever make laws about things that only physically affect the person doing them? Should heroin and cocaine and meth be legal, or should the police check in to see if you have been eating your vegetables? How do you feel about these types of laws.

On the shallow end of this argument, we have seatbelt laws, laws against things like tobacco and marijuana, ect. In the deeper end we have pretty much all drug laws, laws to stop a person from comitting suicide, ect. Should the government ever make laws about things that only physically affect the person doing them? Should heroin and cocaine and meth be legal, or should the police check in to see if you have been eating your vegetables? How do you feel about these types of laws.
Not real good. I don't like laws which try to legislate morality, even if they're disguised as being somehow "for your own good."

I have been very interested in "failure to act" laws though. Most of them require a person to act in situations where their failure to act could result in either grevious bodily harm or death to someone.

That's a tough question, and it gets into that nasty 'grey areas' bit. My view, we should legislate certain things, such as having meth, heroin etc. be illegal, but some of the less severe or potentially damaging things (marijuana, vegetables) shouldn't be any of the government's business.

On the shallow end of this argument, we have seatbelt laws, laws against things like tobacco and marijuana, ect. In the deeper end we have pretty much all drug laws, laws to stop a person from comitting suicide, ect. Should the government ever make laws about things that only physically affect the person doing them? Should heroin and cocaine and meth be legal, or should the police check in to see if you have been eating your vegetables? How do you feel about these types of laws.A person Driving Drunk is a threat to anyone nearby.

People high on most drugs can still affect those around them... including smoking normal cigarettes. Drunks can still be a danger, in and out of their cars.

then there's the Traumas of thoes who are near to people who take their own life.

Everything should be legal that doesn't harm anyone else. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

Thats one of the jobs of government though, isn't it? Setting a benchmark on how far too far is. The benchmark maybe extremely small, or very large, in either case it is there. It's there for the good of society, so society can progress. (This doesn't mean that there can not be no benchmark)

From a completely deontological point of view that ignores consequences, these laws are nonsense. If you're going to outlaw drugs because people can misuse them, you might as well outlaw cars and knives. Almost anything can be misued.

It becomes more difficult with examples like JuNii pointed out. We can allow people to get high and leave the crime at harming other people, but the line between harming yourself and harming others becomes much thinner with things like drunk driving. Although, tobacco use in the presence of other people, I would put an end to that because it's a clear direct infringement on the right of someone else to not get slowly poisoned.

I am against such legislation.

legalize drugs

legalize suicide

let people do what they want if it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.

people shoulg be allowed to ruin their own life if they wish.

I am against such legislation.

legalize drugs

legalize suicide

let people do what they want if it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.

people shoulg be allowed to ruin their own life if they wish.
agreed. I don't like the government having so much control over people's personal lives.

I am against such legislation.

legalize drugs

legalize suicide

let people do what they want if it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.

people shoulg be allowed to ruin their own life if they wish.

That's the obvious ideal to me and at least some others. But how do you draw the line when it comes to drunk driving or even speeding? Again, from a purely moral point of view, I would say sure, go ahead and drive drunk or speed. I will only call you a criminal when you harm someone else. However, when you consider the consequences, it makes you think twice about going purely on deontological principles.

/joins the Sumamba Smunkeeville club.

Another thing people don't realise is that, in a huge amount of cases, drugs completely tare families apart. This is especially commen with herorine users, that is another reason why society as a whole is better off with out it.

On the shallow end of this argument, we have seatbelt laws, laws against things like tobacco and marijuana, ect. In the deeper end we have pretty much all drug laws, laws to stop a person from comitting suicide, ect. Should the government ever make laws about things that only physically affect the person doing them? Should heroin and cocaine and meth be legal, or should the police check in to see if you have been eating your vegetables? How do you feel about these types of laws.

I think, to consume drugs should be legal with enough and proper advertising about its effects. Later, if you choose to take a bit of it, it's your problem and of anybody else. But the possesion in public of these kind of substances should remain illegal, of course, since it can be used for "making bussiness"

I end my announcement with a claim pro-legalization of marijuana, since different scientific studies have demonstrated that this plant benefits in a great way our health. But I say this only in use of my freedom of speech without any intention of infrincting any law and without the mood of making any assert.

That's the obvious ideal to me and at least some others. But how do you draw the line when it comes to drunk driving or even speeding? Again, from a purely moral point of view, I would say sure, go ahead and drive drunk or speed. I will only call you a criminal when you harm someone else. However, when you consider the consequences, it makes you think twice about going purely on deontological principles.
The thing is that drunk driving or speeding greatly increases the chance of hurting someone else. I mean, taking reasonable risks is one thing, but to recklessly endanger someone else's life, even if no harm comes out of it in the end, is quite another.

It's like shooting towards a crowd, even if you don't hit anyone, the chances of hurting someone were very high.

The thing is that drunk driving or speeding greatly increases the chance of hurting someone else. I mean, taking reasonable risks is one thing, but to recklessly endanger someone else's life, even if no harm comes out of it in the end, is quite another.

It's like shooting towards a crowd, even if you don't hit anyone, the chances of hurting someone were very high.

exactly! this is close to what I was writing before an Intellion popup ad courtesy of Jolt crashed my IE. I know, I know... should been using Firefox. Well, better late than never.

Speeding or driving under the influence endangers others as well as yourself. Hurting yourself is fine... it's your body/life afterall, but once you get behind the wheel you are no longer responsible for just yourself if you are operating heavy machinery in public places.

Gee Smunkeeville... doesn't this sound familiar...

I think, to consume drugs should be legal with enough and proper advertising about its effects. Later, if you choose to take a bit of it, it's your problem and of anybody else. But the possesion in public of these kind of substances should remain illegal, of course, since it can be used for "making bussiness"

Gee Smunkeeville... doesn't this sound familiar...

Gotta add: That people can use drugs, whenever their use don't involve nor endanger other people. That's my opinion, but I say this only in use of my freedom of speech without any intention of infrincting any law and without the mood of making any assert.

Gotta add: That people can use drugs, whenever their use don't involve nor endanger other people. That's my opinion, but I say this only in use of my freedom of speech without any intention of infrincting any law and without the mood of making any assert.
Referring to a Movie that Smunkeeville and I saw. ;)

Gotta add: That people can use drugs, whenever their use don't involve nor endanger other people. That's my opinion, but I say this only in use of my freedom of speech without any intention of infrincting any law and without the mood of making any assert.
now, how would you insure that the person taking drugs/drinking will not be a danger to others.
Take away their licence(s) if proven that they are habitual users?
Make them Live in a seperate area of town where they can be watched to insure they won't pose a threat to others?

How would you insure that their partaking of drugs will not endanger anyone else in their near vicinity?

Referring to a Movie that Smunkeeville and I saw. ;)

So can I say these guys with blue suits that are aiming at me with their guns that I'm not that bad? :p Thank you!

Take away their licence(s) if proven that they are habitual users?

That's it.

To ensure thei don't endanger anybody around them, they should be conscious about where are they at that time. Of course, if they harm somebody, try, or may do it, they would receive greetings of my blue suits friends.

Referring to a Movie that Smunkeeville and I saw. ;)
just to be clear, we saw it seperately.........you know before the rumors start and it gets back to my husband and he gets all broken up about it.......LOL

I am against such legislation.

legalize drugs

legalize suicide

let people do what they want if it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.

people shoulg be allowed to ruin their own life if they wish.

...so long as you waive your "right" to free government healthcare and childcare.

Deal?

...so long as you waive your "right" to free government healthcare and childcare.

Deal?
I don't have a right to free government healthcare and childcare... nor do I want one

Deal?

...so long as you waive your "right" to free government healthcare and childcare.

Deal?

Why should I do that?

I smoke pot but I am healthier than the majority of people I know.

And like SMunkee said - I don't even get those things anyway.

I agree though that people who live unhealthy lives should get less consideration when it coems to govt help.

Why should I do that?

I smoke pot but I am healthier than the majority of people I know.

And like SMunkee said - I don't even get those things anyway.

I agree though that people who live unhealthy lives should get less consideration when it coems to govt help.

Sounds just like irresponsibility to me. If you want to take drugs, then you should waive your right to "free" care if the drugs are even 1% contributory to your illness/accident.

One who uses drugs may before using the drugs not mean to do anything that may harm others, but once someone uses drugs, their judgement is impaired, and therefore, they may act in a way that harms others. Taking away someone's liscence doesn't mean they won't drive. People drive without liscences when they aren't high, so you think that when they are high they will actually obey the law. And we can't punish them after they kill someone. The right to live is much more important than someone's right to use drugs.

The only way I see this being possible is a facility monitored or run by the government, where people can go in, get high, stay until they are sober, and leave. If people really want to get high that much, I think that is the only way to do it without infringing on someone else's rights.

So can I say these guys with blue suits that are aiming at me with their guns that I'm not that bad? :p Thank you!of course... tho they might believe you if you yourself are not aiming a gun at them... or worse... a camcorder... :D



That's it.

To ensure thei don't endanger anybody around them, they should be conscious about where are they at that time. Of course, if they harm somebody, try, or may do it, they would receive greetings of my blue suits friends.now who's to define habitual user... what monitoring system will be used?
honor? if everyone were honorable, there wouldn't be a need for Lawyers or cops.

so you still will need some form of monitoring to check on when an occasional user becomes a habitual user.

just to be clear, we saw it seperately.........you know before the rumors start and it gets back to my husband and he gets all broken up about it.......LOL
if he dares question your faithfulness... :mad: ;) :D

yes, to all those looking for a scandal, we did see it seperately, and the fact that her Husband saw the movie with her and I saw the movie in Hawaii...

Sounds just like irresponsibility to me. If you want to take drugs, then you should waive your right to "free" care if the drugs are even 1% contributory to your illness/accident.
or is it total responsibility? being 100% responsible for your life, your actions, their consequences? why do you need the governmetn to go around behind you and tell you what to do, how to do it, and when to get it done by? why do you need them to "take care of you"?

true freedom is being able to make an idiot out of yourself, recover, and then ruin your life all over again.

On the shallow end of this argument, we have seatbelt laws, laws against things like tobacco and marijuana, ect. In the deeper end we have pretty much all drug laws, laws to stop a person from comitting suicide, ect. Should the government ever make laws about things that only physically affect the person doing them?
Some laws like this are good, because in truth there is very little that you can do that has no potential to harm someone else.

Sounds just like irresponsibility to me. If you want to take drugs, then you should waive your right to "free" care if the drugs are even 1% contributory to your illness/accident.

What sounds like irresponsibility?

I pay for my healthcare on my own dime. Not my parents, not my works, not my wifes, mine. I work full time and have a side business. I'm pay all my bills in full and on time. I own a brand new home.

What free care are you going on about? Where are you from?

Are you just being a troll because the last two threads I saw you post in were nothign but inflammatory outbursts. I didn't see you leaving any chance for a real duscussion as if your word is the last word that ever needs to be said. Do you know all or something? Is that you God?

now who's to define habitual user... what monitoring system will be used?
honor? if everyone were honorable, there wouldn't be a need for Lawyers or cops.


Oh, man, the police always know who's a consumer... dunno how, but they know...

Oh, man, the police always know who's a consumer... dunno how, but they know...
the police work on assumptions, what stops them from making mistakes? how do you protect the rights of the people in those situations?

What sounds like irresponsibility?

I pay for my healthcare on my own dime. Not my parents, not my works, not my wifes, mine. I work full time and have a side business. I'm pay all my bills in full and on time. I own a brand new home.

What free care are you going on about? Where are you from?

Are you just being a troll because the last two threads I saw you post in were nothign but inflammatory outbursts. I didn't see you leaving any chance for a real duscussion as if your word is the last word that ever needs to be said. Do you know all or something? Is that you God?I think he/she might be referring to things covered with Insurance. also some countries do have basic healthcare for everyone.

the police work on assumptions, what stops them from making mistakes? how do you protect the rights of the people in those situations?
exactly,
1) who defines Occasional user vs Habitual user.
2) how to montitor to make sure an Occasional User isn't treated like a Habitual user
3) and all without compromising individual privacy.

I think he/she might be referring to things covered with Insurance. also some countries do have basic healthcare for everyone.


Well he/she/it keeps going on about this "free" care I am supposedly getting. It sounds more like a rant against social services than anything.

I agree though that people who live blatantly unhealthy lifestyles should not be given preferential treatment when tryign to get financial help for medical bills.

Like you can tell when someone smokes a pack of ciggs a day. They should have to pay more for their lung cancer bill than someone who doesnt smoke ciggs.

Like you can tell when someone smokes a pack of ciggs a day. They should have to pay more for their lung cancer bill than someone who doesnt smoke ciggs.

careful, that could be viewed as punishment.... it's unfair to dole out punishment in such unclear situations, it could be very cruel indeed to deny medical care to a person because of their prior actions, based upon their inability to pay a higher price.

Well he/she/it keeps going on about this "free" care I am supposedly getting. It sounds more like a rant against social services than anything.

I agree though that people who live blatantly unhealthy lifestyles should not be given preferential treatment when tryign to get financial help for medical bills.

Like you can tell when someone smokes a pack of ciggs a day. They should have to pay more for their lung cancer bill than someone who doesnt smoke ciggs.
actually, I believe most Insurances do adjust prices for things like that.

The thing is that drunk driving or speeding greatly increases the chance of hurting someone else. I mean, taking reasonable risks is one thing, but to recklessly endanger someone else's life, even if no harm comes out of it in the end, is quite another.

It's like shooting towards a crowd, even if you don't hit anyone, the chances of hurting someone were very high.

THere is a difference between drinking and driving and drunk driving. The MADD cartel would like tyo confuse and obfuscate the difference - but it is considerable. The laws are currently more against drinking and driving - not drunk driving. A backlash is finally developing. See http://www.getmadd.com

careful, that could be viewed as punishment.... it's unfair to dole out punishment in such unclear situations, it could be very cruel indeed to deny medical care to a person because of their prior actions, based upon their inability to pay a higher price.

No I am speaking of helping with payment, not denying medical care.
I wouldnt agree to that.

actually, I believe most Insurances do adjust prices for things like that.


It most certainly is and I agree with that practice.

Right now, we are in the era of the abdication of personal responsibility.

Why pass laws against idiocy while we encourage it?

The idea that someone can sue over hot coffee implies that whatever accidents befall me, they are not my fault, but someone else's fault.

"Failure to warn" lawsuits are commonplace over the most idiotic accidents imaginable - but we're supposed to believe that it's not the user's fault - ever.

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of people who can think and judge in contiuously changing situations on the fly. We all want to be able to say, "hey, it's not my fault..." and have "the law" to cover our ass.

A lot of the "no exception" and "zero tolerance" policies in public schools here in the US is also encouraging idiocy - the same for "mandatory sentencing" - no one is allowed to use their brain to make a judgment call.

Right now, people who actually let people know that they occasionally think for themselves are denigrated as whack-jobs and nutcases.

I'm seeing almost the entire gamut of possible responses to this. At this point almost any post is going to be a "me too" sort of thing, but it's probably important to know how many people are on which side of the fence (and this fence has more than two sides).

For my part, I say legalize anything that doesn't have obvious adverse consequences on other people. Note that "legal" doesn't mean "unregulated". I'm against the government getting into our personal lives, but, as has been pointed out, some things, like tobacco don't just kill the people who smoke it. Tobacco also kills people who don't smoke it. I'm hyper-allergic to cigarette smoke. It might be your right to smoke a cigarette, but it's also my right to breath safe air. Light up around me and you're denying me something that is essential to my very life. In such a case my right to breath supercedes your right to smoke. I have to breath the air around me. You can go smoke somewhere else. This is just an example. I'm not specifically singling out tobacco, but it's a very good way of demonstrating the concept of "freedom with responsibility". You don't have a right to hurt other people, even if that damage is "collateral", by exercising a right.

There really isn't a simple answer to legislating this stuff. One has to take into consideration all sorts of variables. The tobacco issue seems, on the surface, to be a simple one. You're free to light up in the privacy of your home, but we'll outlaw smoking in all public places (there are actually laws in effect like this). Does this finally put an end to the issue? No. One of my mates watched his father die a horrible death of lung cancer that had spread throughout his body. His mother had severe lung problems -- directly related to decades of breathing second hand smoke. His death left them up to their ears in debt that they couldn't pay on his mother's Social Security and his wages. Did his father have a right to do that to them? I don't think so. The cost in physical and emotional suffering, to say nothing of the financial burden, is simply too great to ignore. One can apply this line of reasoning to any number of other "rights" that people would like to have, and it results in some tough decisions regarding just how far the government should go in curtailing what, at first glance, seem like innocuous activities.

Are you just being a troll because the last two threads I saw you post in were nothign but inflammatory outbursts. I didn't see you leaving any chance for a real duscussion as if your word is the last word that ever needs to be said. Do you know all or something? Is that you God?

Ok, I won't talk about God anymore or bring up morality. Besides, my morality is not your morality, but we should have healthcare for all because that's a human right, not a privelege.

No I am speaking of helping with payment, not denying medical care.
I wouldnt agree to that.
I forgot my ;) sarcasm smiley

Well I was in favor of some of those laws because people on drugs, alcohol, etc. are impaired and make awful decisions affecting NOT ONLY THEM. If they only affected their lives, then I'm totally fine with weeding out the morons in society by letting the crackheads get their hit.

Ok, I won't talk about God anymore or bring up morality. Besides, my morality is not your morality, but we should have healthcare for all because that's a human right, not a privelege.


Talk about God or morality all you want. I was just disturbed that you were beign so accusing toward me when it didnt pertain to me.

I'd love universal healthcare and two cities in the US have adopted it as far as I know.

I forgot my ;) sarcasm smiley

:eek:























:p