Reply With QuoteI don't think you fully understand what I mean by "conducive". I mean like, CHEMICALLY ALTERING things in your brain and endocrine system to such degrees that you could vomit immediately after a single consumption and feel woozy within minutes.
They might be conducive to them, but they don't force bad decisions. Those are entirely the choice of the person in question regardless of how drunk that person is. Also the choice to take drugs in a certain environment is a choice of the individual. Like I said, drugs might make people more likely to make stupid decisions, but until those stupid decisions are actually made, that's immaterial. Love makes people do stupid things (knife the adulterer) but we don't prosecute love itself, we prosecute the foolish actions taken under the influence.
Originally Posted by Fenn
You forgot your F in Modesty.
I don't think you fully understand what I mean by "conducive". I mean like, CHEMICALLY ALTERING things in your brain and endocrine system to such degrees that you could vomit immediately after a single consumption and feel woozy within minutes.
Then take it in circumstances where you're unlikely to take a stupid course of action as a consequence. Have someone watch you. It's still not the drugs you ultimately want to defend against.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Yeah, actually, it is. lol. No matter what precautions we take, nothing will change the fact that consumption of drugs is harmful to your body and equally harmful to your judgement. And not just on the level of "temptation", either, unlike fatty foods or lazy habits, but through hard chemistry. They are the source of the problem.
What you're saying is: murder is not bad as long as we have law enforcement. No, the point of law enforcement is to stop murder because murder is inherently bad. It doesn't get any better just because we have people to stop it from happening. Likewise, no matter what precautions we take, (most) drugs are inherently harmful.
They are harmful to oneself. You are proposing that we protect people from potential harm that they consent to on the grounds that you believe that taking drugs is 'bad'. Didn't that strike you as a little authoritarian?
To run with the murder analogy, it's more like if watching violent films put you at increased risk of murdering someone. Would you ban those violent films? Of course not, that would be insane - the act of murder is criminal, not the risk factors that might cause it. Preventative law is as misled as preventative war.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
No, they are harmful to everyone around you in that they CHEMICALLY increase the chances of some shit going down. We're talking hard chemistry, not by whim of temptation. Drugs affect everyone in a similar, chemical way. Whereas watching a violent movie would only affect someone who go the temptation to kill, or was inspired by the movie, or whatever. That's not the case with the majority of people (obv.). But if you observe cases of alcohol-related deaths, most of them are accidents. In other words, a lack of murderous intent. You don't have to be a killer to kill someone cuz you're fucked up. That, sir, is the effect of drugs.
But I admit that my analogy was badly phrased. My laptop was running out of batteries and I was in a hurry to post. What I meant is: murder is bad. Murder kills people. Likewise, drugs are bad and increases the risks of fatal accidents. What you're saying, though, is that we should blame drug-related deaths on the circumstance (like not having responsible friends around). That's like saying we should blame murder on cops because they couldn't stop it when truly the murderer and the act of murder are to blame.
But hey, I actually don't think our current drugs should be banned. I think they're okay, in moderation. I only brought that argument to call a bluff in the Weed thread. So we really have no debate here anyway. I just disagree that drugs are not the source of the problem.
what happens is we again have a fake democracy. Which is why democracy in the form we currently have it will never bring complete equality. Only the legitimization of one groups views over the other. Not that I can suggest anything better
Whaaat? No. The problem with putting religious stuff on public buildings is because it implies that the state is supporting one religion over another. Ben 'inclusive' in this case almost always means that it is majority strutting their stuff, looking down their noses at minorities that aren't like them and are therefore have to play by their rules.
The Ten commandments on a public school or courthouse is essentially saying:
"Hey you! Atheist, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan! Screw you! The law and this country belong to us. Sure, if you're not CHristan you can come here...but you don't truly belong here. You aren't a legitimate part of the government or this community. This government belongs to the Christians; we're merely tolerating your presence because we are soooo generous."
Putting a religious symbol on a public building is, 99% of the time, territory marking. If someone wants to express their religion, they can do so on the street, at home, at church. Why go out of their way to stick it on public buildings if it isn't a big middle finger to everyone that doesn't share their religion, or to imply that their religion is the official one?
Governments should never promote one religion over the other. It can be reasonable argued that holiday displays which are open to any faith or group are fine, or that Christmas trees have become secular. But in the majority of cases, it is a blatant, Christian-only display.
The Christian majority slapping their symbols on everything that belongs to the public is not promoting tolerance of ANYBODY. And later on, someone will point to that cross on that courthouse and say, "See? This government is based on Christian principles and Christian values. We should use public funds to promote it, and we should make laws based on it. And if you're not a Christian, shut up and deal or get out."
Last edited by Alexander_Hamilton; 05-21-2011 at 05:27 AM.
Hammy put it well. Additionally, I think we need to examine what religions teach too. Christianity is a religion that says it is morally acceptable to torture someone in what are literally the worst ways possible for what is literally forever. Do we want our government to promote an ideology that promotes eternal torture?
The most I think that should be done is around major holidays celebrated by a major segment of the population is maybe some sort of generic "Happy Holidays" thing of some sort. Keep it vague and generic. And while that may be appropriate in some areas, in places like courthouses and other "serious" government buildings, even that would be unacceptable I feel.
And as an aside, yeah. I'd argue we should take steps to just make the final push towards making Christmas secular as we have Thanksgiving. Plus Christmas is an awesome holiday. Give/receive gifts and decorate a tree with awesome little figures? Fuck yeah!
The spontaneous entrance of Alexander Hamilton into this thread makes it win.
As far as drugs are concerned, I think the best solution is to legalize all drugs, and greatly increase the penalty of every crime which is proven to have been influenced by drugs or alcohol. I'd argue any (proven) drug-related cause for a crime or misdemeanor-- be it assault, DUI, etc--should have mandatory jail time without bail (and not just a week) and full compensation for any damage or inconvenience caused.
In addition, the wrappers or packaging for any legally produced drugs (alcohol, weed, etc) should have these criminal warnings in big bold print by law. Then everyone who chooses to take any drug is essentially saying they are certain they will not commit any crime.
If they do, we punish them so hard they won't even think about a repeat offense.
I say we do just that, but we change the name and meaning. Holly Day maybe? Then we can go around saying "Happy Holly Day!" And the themes would be new life, charity, and new beginnings (a good prep for new years).And as an aside, yeah. I'd argue we should take steps to just make the final push towards making Christmas secular as we have Thanksgiving. Plus Christmas is an awesome holiday. Give/receive gifts and decorate a tree with awesome little figures?
Last edited by Fenn; 05-21-2011 at 10:34 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks