Logicboy03:
Does certain mean right?

not neccesaryly, but if we are declearing right and wrong then we must must be certain, as truth isnt suppose to change.

Religion is certain on many wrong positions. The catholic church has embarrased itself on condoms, evolution and abortionso many times that it had to change its rigid point of view on these moral issues

sorry u have been misinformed abortion and contraception are still consider moral evils by d church, d position never change. Evolution on d other hand isnt a matter of faith or moral and nobody is forced to be for or against.

Ubenedictus: not neccesaryly, but if we are declearing right and wrong then we must must be certain, as truth isnt suppose to change.
sorry u have been misinformed abortion and contraception are still consider moral evils by d church, d position never change. Evolution on d other hand isnt a matter of faith or moral and nobody is forced to be for or against.

Okay, give up.

I dont know whether you are trolling or you really believe that your catholic church has never made failures in its doctrines and actions.

The catholc position on condoms
http://www.care2.com/causes/pope-says-its-ok-to-use-condoms-to-reduce-risk-of-hivaids-even-outside-of-marriage.html

Good evening wiegraf,

Hmmm...

wiegraf:

Agreed, I think that's how it stands atm.

The above is cool!

wiegraf:
Now, to the crux. We've done this already but let me expantiate. Who qualify as 'victims'? Friends and family do not imho.

Your mother wants you to be a doctor, you want to be an artist. So, does her wish override yours simply because she's family? It's your life, not hers. It's your decision, you are not mandated indulge peoples desires when you owe them nothing. They do not have that right. If it were so, I might as well say I'm disappointed you're an xtian, does that now make me a victim? That's my problem, certainly not yours. This applies to any sort of relationship, family, friends, enemies, etc. A rival at work gets a promotion thereby hurting my feelings, does that now make me a victim? Perhaps he should quit and recommend me for the position.

Now when your actions directly harm another or his rights, then we're talking. We now have a victim. There are probably other scenarios with victims but I think I'll leave it like this, for now...

wiegraf...more restrictions? I understand that the above is your opinion on the ish of who qualifies as a victim but I don't think it is appropriate to exclude one's relatives. I agree with the example you gave but it doesn't quite cover it. And really, I thought we are considering how these 'crimes' affect the society at large of which one's family and friends are also a part of. Anyways, if you want us to exclude family and friends then no biggy. Your thread, your rules!

wiegraf:
There is some truth here, but figuring out those cases cannot be done whimsically.

The burka is a complicated case, very much like polygamy actually. In fact in most ways, it's the same thing. Here's the thing with both cases; there are victims. Quite a few women don't have a say on whether they should wear it or not, they're forced to even if by just societal pressure (in some countries by law, of course). Same with polygamy.

Now if we were mature enough, both these situations should be legal, no problems (well, except security concerns as far as burkas in some places is concerned). But they've been abused so much so their illegal status in some countries is justified. They do lead to a sort of modern day slavery, robbing people of their rights, thus creating victims.

Well it seems we are in agreement that polygamy is not a 'victim-less crime'.

wiegraf:
But smoking actively harms non smokers minding their own business. In fact, it kills quite a few. If I went around knowingly giving people cancer with my cancer-ray-gun, like say some nuclear reactor, I'm sure society will make me pay one way or another. That is more or else what cigarette smokers in public do. I would say smoking isn't victimless as well

I agree that smoking is not victim-less just like narcotics is not too.

wiegraf:
Also, do note he's apologizing for his perceived insensitivity. He's not suggesting his statement was wrong, just that it was tactless to put it that way.

I believe he said something like there's more of a chance of one dying from horse back riding than from ecstasy. He still stands by that claim but acknowledges its insensitivity. No matter how few, loved ones still died, and his statement could come across as trivializing the issue to some.

The bottom line here is that there are victims...the reason why he concluded that smoking appears to be riskier than some narcotics is basically because more people have access to alcohol than narcotics. Assuming narcotics is not regulated and is given the same legal status as alcohol then the story would have been very different. At least we know that regulating the use of narcotics seem to be working for now.

Thanks!

^^

Don't misunderstand, the whole point is to debate this issues. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, but I remain unconvinced. Loved ones, hated ones, even society as a whole, cannot be considered victims until their rights have been affected imo.

With narcotics in particular, alcohol, like studies have pointed out, is rather dangerous. Easily one of the most dangerous by most measures to an individual (and 'society'?), yet it has been successfully regulated in a lot of the world. Same, in a manner, with cigarettes which are actively harmful (really, they should be outright illegal in most public settings...well, they are). And note again, there were no victims (as I defined the word, remember, conscious self harm does not count) in the cases of ecstasy and a few other lesser narcotics. Indeed the good doctor still holds his assertion that you're more likely to die from horse back riding than taking ecstasy.

When all these are considered, there really is no reason to ban most drugs other than fear. Fear is a silly thing to base your decisions, as we all know. Rational approach would be regulation, like that which has worked well in america after the folly that was prohibition. As it stands, we're hindering the rights of others because we don't like it, simply. That shouldn't stand imo.



With polygamy, my position is somewhat more nuanced. I see absolutely nothing wrong with on paper, at all. The jealousies and what not that oga deep sight mentions for instance, I regard as non issues. People cheat all the time, those issues remain one wife or ten. We also shouldn't be taking cues from the animal kingdom, for obvious reasons. We also have to consider that there are situations where polygamy has been indeed healthy and productive, even in the west with certain couples with open relationships. Really, I see no reason to impose our morals on others when there are no victims, I'd rather regulation. The tricky part with this case, and the burka as well, is consent.

Consider the grisly tale of the infamous german cannibal. I'll spare details for anyone who's not heard of the case before (for the rest of you, sorry for the small brain freeze you just experienced), but the case had a peculiar factor (among many others of course). The victim very clearly gave his consent. In fact he participated, he actually willingly attempted to eat bits of himself as well, before he was eventually (lovingly...) turned to suya. The cannibal actually interviewed other people interested in becoming dinner as well, amicably and what not. They willingly showed up after reading his ad online, but they all had second thoughts and backed out, no pressure involved. The only on to go through with it of course was our eventual bonkers hero victim. So, how was he a victim? Why should the cannibal be held accountable?

Eventually it was ruled that the victim was clearly bat $hit insane and was somewhat manipulated by the cannibal, therefore the cannibal was responsible. Personally, I disagree with this, the cannibal is clearly as crazy as the victim. I'm not convinced he was capable of manipulation per se, I mean, he failed with all the others who answered his advert. I do think he should remain locked though because all the psychology clearly points to the fact that if free, he will continue to look for another crazy willing to become dinner.

Regardless, my point is that as that court recognized, some people are simply not in the best situation to make decisions for themselves. Young women and girls, constantly manipulated into thinking what is more or else slavery in some of these situations is acceptable and indeed desirable, apply. Why would anyone willingly sell herself into slavery? There probably is something wrong somewhere. And some don't willingly get into these situations mind you, they are actively coerced by family and friends, the same group you consider victims in other situations, into these situation. The number of followers of a practice does not make it right, a la old school slavery. She was not born to slave for them, regardless of whatever they're silly traditions may espouse, it is an (gross) infringement of her rights.

So, yeah, basically, to protect the very real danger of producing victims we have keep these practices in check. And quite a lot of victims in these cases, with women actually perpetuating the problem. They usually grow up to become the oppressor of fellow women as well, as they know nothing else. A few are lucky to escape, this woman here being a notable example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

So, again, while there might seem to be nothing wrong with polygamy ostensibly, there are rather real dangers as far as rights are concerned. We are not mature enough to deal with this yet, imo. But ideally, eventually, I would say regulation of this, like any other marriage, will be the solution.



Sooo looong, so much time wasted. No time to edit and remove redundancy... When did I even type this? Gaddem. Anyways, I was also thinking about business monopolies.

Nepa, I can't do any work... Who's been to /islam recently btw, it's still really, really troubling... Cancer level of troubling... Ah, yes, my bahdt for senseless random.

@ubene

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seemed to be pushing for was an objective, transcendal morality. Be it from a god or no, yes? Virtually all theistic moral codes are of this nature (on paper, I may not have explained why I hold it's actually not so here in detail but if you want I'll post a link where I do that), and that's why I use them as an example to contrast against strictly secular morals, which are usually from the onset billed as subjective.

Like you noticed though (and it was worrying me as well), this is all off topic

striktlymi:

Good morning wiegraf,

Saw the latest inclusion to your list. I will focus on the first and share my view on the second in a separate post.

For the purpose of our discuss, let's take gambling as the act of playing a game of chance which involves either a gain or loss of some form of economic resources to include money or property of which the outcome is uncertain. I know gambling can have other meanings which includes risk-taking in one's business endeavour but I will appreciate it if we can go with the definition I have provided in other to avoid complexities in our analysis.

I order to arrive at a logical conclusion on whether or not gambling is a 'victim-less crime', it is important to consider the various scenarios but for simplicity sake, I will limit these scenarios to just two with the hope that I will be able to cover the various aspects that will help us determine whether gambling is a 'victim-less crime' or not.

Scenario 1:

An individual gambler who is calculative in his approach to risk-taken in terms of the extent to which he is willing to commit an economic resource to each act of gambling. He is aware of the need to limit his losses and maximize his gains and no matter how much he stands to gain he treats gambling like a limited liability company i.e he limits the maximum exposure to the amount he has decided to 'invest' in gambling. For this individual he knows that there is a need to keep the chunk of his economic resource for himself and his family such that whatever he gains or loses should not have a material impact on the life style of himself and his family.

The above individual is a rational decision taker and he knows the extent to which he can gamble. In this scenario, the individual gambler is not hurting anyone by his actions and even if he loses all, his ability to take care of his family is not impaired in anyway. This I consider NOT to be a crime talk-less of it
having a victim.

Scenario 2:

This gambler is the direct opposite of his counterpart above. He acts irrationally when committing economic resources to each act of gambling. For him there is nothing like a maximum exposure. He believes in a 'sure deal' and is willing to give up all in order to take advantage of this 'sure deal'. He is oblivious to the fact that gambling derives its name and meaning because there is nothing like a 'sure deal'. He is willing to even bet his house, children's school fees, his wife etc for the sake of gambling.

Considering the second scenario, I will say that gambling is not so victim-less after all. But in the overall analysis, gambling in itself is not a crime and whether or not it becomes a crime has to do with the individual gambler. If you ask me whether it should be outlawed, I will say NO but there should be some form of regulation to protect the interest of the likely victims of the excesses of the irrational gambler.

This regulation is also important for the gambler himself because some persons do not play fair. There are cases where the outcome of an event only favours the owner and no matter what the gambler does, he possibly cannot win cause his chances of losing is always 1, instead of it being 0.5 for winning and 0.5 for losing.


Thank you!

This is, broadly speaking, the approach I would like taken for all victimless crimes. Regulation.

The irresponsible gambler for instance, frankly shouldn't be responsible for minors, that can be monitored. Like you note, by regulating gambling authorities can protect gamblers from the bookies, casinos and what not. Designated areas for casinos could be assigned so as to monitor activity better, etc. They could even generate revenue via taxing those involved, rather than waste money prosecuting petty offenders that harm no one. Revenue that would fund all these regulations, among many other things.

Narcotics do not have this for the most part. The result is shared needles and toxic cocktails which could kill the users. Poor education about dangers, possibly poor support structures for addicts (depends on the community, eg an addict in an islamic country is probably screwed), etc, etc.

Deep Sight:
The fact thus remains that regardless of whether or not one wants to argue for the morality or immorality of any of these acts - one cannot argue that they are victimless.

I still disagree obviously, they are victimless in the way I describe above; they do not harm the rights of others. Also, we need to be weary of using subjective experiences to form laws. That's obviously a rather slippery slope.

Bestiality though, I agree, isn't victimless

Good morning wiegraf,

wiegraf: ^^

Don't misunderstand, the whole point is to debate this issues. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, but I remain unconvinced. Loved ones, hated ones, even society as a whole, cannot be considered victims until their rights have been affected imo.

This is my point exactly! One's family and friends can be considered victims when their rights are infringed on, hence it won't be appropriate to rule them out completely.

wiegraf:
With narcotics in particular, alcohol, like studies have pointed out, is rather dangerous. Easily one of the most dangerous by most measures to an individual (and 'society'?), yet it has been successfully regulated in a lot of the world. Same, in a manner, with cigarettes which are actively harmful (really, they should be outright illegal in most public settings...well, they are). And note again, there were no victims (as I defined the word, remember, conscious self harm does not count) in the cases of ecstasy and a few other lesser narcotics. Indeed the good doctor still holds his assertion that you're more likely to die from horse back riding than taking ecstasy.

You are still missing the point here...I have no ish categorizing alcohol and cigarettes as 'crimes' with victims but to use this as an argument for narcotics is inappropriate. The fact that studies seem to support the claim that some narcotics are less harmful than alcohol does not in anyway undermine the dangers inherent in the use of narcotics. Humans are social beings...it is impractical for the majority of us to live in isolation. If one uses narcotics and the harm comes to the individual alone, suggesting that the indivdual lives in isolation, then you would be right to say that the person is not harming anyone else.

But the truth is, those who prefer to use narcotics interact with the rest of humanity. Some would be doctors, students, lawyers, construction workers etc. A construction worker who uses narcotics is not only a danger to himself, he also is an active danger to his colleagues for the simple reason that when he is under the influence of narcotics, his senses are numb and in that state he is not suitable to use some delicate equipment which can cause bodily harm to others.

Self-harm implies societal harm when the self-abused individual mingles with the society at large. It would be very inappropriate and reckless on the part of government to see this potential for societal harm and decide not to do anything about it. The restrictions we have today on narcotics is in my view appropriate. If an individual can use narcotics 'responsibly' it does not imply that another can do same.

You are right to say that the heavy restrictions on narcotics is caused because of fear...everyone should be afraid of what it can do to an individual. Forced prostitution today thrives mainly because of the inherent dangers of narcotics. Narcotics is used as a means to put these victims under 'control'. There have been cases where kidnapped victims were recovered only to find them in an irreparable state because of narcotics. This too is used to force some people into slavery. You really can't say that 'traffickers' would have gotten the same result if they had attempted the use of cigarettes and alcohol to control their victims. Hence my argument that same legal status for alcohol and narcotics is inappropriate and I bet that some individual rights can be given up in order to curb this menace.

wiegraf:
Consider the grisly tale of the infamous german cannibal. I'll spare details for anyone who's not heard of the case before (for the rest of you, sorry for the small brain freeze you just experienced), but the case had a peculiar factor (among many others of course). The victim very clearly gave his consent. In fact he participated, he actually willingly attempted to eat bits of himself as well, before he was eventually (lovingly...) turned to suya. The cannibal actually interviewed other people interested in becoming dinner as well, amicably and what not. They willingly showed up after reading his ad online, but they all had second thoughts and backed out, no pressure involved. The only on to go through with it of course was our eventual bonkers hero victim. So, how was he a victim? Why should the cannibal be held accountable?

Well weigraf, consent does not give one the right to take the life of another. This really has nothing to do with personal morality. Taking the life of another is wrong and especially in the manner Armin took the life of his victim. He also realized this and was sorry for this crime. I won't dwell on this now cause it would be more appropriate to discuss this when we argue about euthanasia.

At least we agree that polygamy is not 'victim-less'.


Thanks!

Note, whenever I use the word victims, I use it the way I described above (rights based)

striktlymi: Good morning wiegraf,



This is my point exactly! One's family and friends can be considered victims when their rights are infringed on, hence it won't be appropriate to rule them out completely.

What I was trying to say (perhaps needlessly) is of course you're very welcome to your opinion, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced in this situation.

I think you misunderstood my position on family/friends as victims, their rights in these matters hold as much weight as random person x's rights. And in this case, the family's rights are NOT being infringed on, it's the opposite.

So long as someone owes them nothing they have no say in a person's actions, non at all. Good intentions are no justification for impeding another's rights. Hitler had good intentions, so did bin laden, etc.

Again, no one was born to slave for family. Like I pointed out, on a daily basis simpler infractions occur. For instance these same people who want to do the 'best' for family members force their daughters into marriages against their will, sometimes abusive marriages even. Or would insist you don't have a blood transfusion even if your life depended on it were they were JWs. They have no right, non at all, non at all.

striktlymi:
You are still missing the point here...I have no ish categorizing alcohol and cigarettes as 'crimes' with victims but to use this as an argument for narcotics is inappropriate. The fact that studies seem to support the claim that some narcotics are less harmful than alcohol does not in anyway undermine the dangers inherent in the use of narcotics. Humans are social beings...it is impractical for the majority of us to live in isolation. If one uses narcotics and the harm comes to the individual alone, suggesting that the indivdual lives in isolation, then you would be right to say that the person is not harming anyone else.

Unlike bestiality it's not a case of two wrongs don't make a right, so alcohol is indeed a valid case study. It's not a case of alcohol is wrong but we allow it therefore we should allow other drugs, then having that argument rebuked on the basis that drugs are bad, just because we allow one form does not mean we should the others (like I did with meat consumption and bestiality). With drugs there are no victims involved, with bestiality there are.

striktlymi:
But the truth is, those who prefer to use narcotics interact with the rest of humanity. Some would be doctors, students, lawyers, construction workers etc. A construction worker who uses narcotics is not only a danger to himself, he also is an active danger to his colleagues for the simple reason that when he is under the influence of narcotics, his senses are numb and in that state he is not suitable to use some delicate equipment which can cause bodily harm to others.

This changes little of what's already been said actually. They do interact with the rest of society, but they're under no obligation to indulge society so long as they're not inflicting harm on another's rights. In fact, like I've stated, society is inflicting harm on their own rights.

And note, for potential accidents; the regulations. Don't hire a junkie. In fact, set up laws like those with driving, like handling such equipment while under the influence could get you landed in prison, not just fired. Again, all one need do is look at how alcohol is managed.

striktlymi:
Self-harm implies societal harm when the self-abused individual mingles with the society at large. It would be very inappropriate and reckless on the part of government to see this potential for societal harm and decide not to do anything about it. The restrictions we have today on narcotics is in my view appropriate. If an individual can use narcotics 'responsibly' it does not imply that another can do same.

Still the same response, so long as they pay taxes and infringe on no one else's rights they really don't owe society anything. Society shouldn't be dictating to them their purpose, ones purpose is one's personal right.

As for the red bit, the aim is not for government to do nothing, but for government to regulate thereby ensuring at least some sort of safety, like with gambling or alcohol.

striktlymi:
You are right to say that the heavy restrictions on narcotics is caused because of fear...everyone should be afraid of what it can do to an individual. Forced prostitution today thrives mainly because of the inherent dangers of narcotics. Narcotics is used as a means to put these victims under 'control'. There have been cases where kidnapped victims were recovered only to find them in an irreparable state because of narcotics. This too is used to force some people into slavery. You really can't say that 'traffickers' would have gotten the same result if they had attempted the use of cigarettes and alcohol to control their victims. Hence my argument that same legal status for alcohol and narcotics is inappropriate and I bet that some individual rights can be given up in order to curb this menace.

Caused by irrational fear, not normal, healthy fear. Irrational fear is rarely good. Fear blinds people.

Now note, I am not against polygamy per se, I'm against the abuse of polygamy, which can be rather blatant. Even the fact that it usually is one way traffic, men with multiple spouses and not the other way round, points in that direction. I do not believe we've shown we can handle that issue maturely. If it can be shown that we could then I'll gladly get out of the way. With drugs though, again, I give you the case alcohol. Reasonably maintained, in fact with good success, yet less harmful drugs are treated with fear, counter productively. Why? For instance, if drugs were regulated then it would be much easier to track down the drugs used to put these victims under control, no?

Note also that forced se.x would go on sadly, drugs or no, as illicit drug use is not a vital part of the trade. A trade which probably wouldn't exist if there were a legal, well regulated sex industry. With people monitoring the 'pimps', looking out for the workers and making sure no abuse takes place, etc. Heck, they could even have unions. Yet there remain knee jerk reactions to these issues when they could be managed sensibly.


Continuing with fear, take rap.e. You have good numbers from the west about the number of victims, types, etc, and a fair deal of measures to tackle the problem honestly. These achieve fairly good results, even though of course there's always room for improvement. At the very least victims are damned well recognized.

Now switch to a conservative islamic country for example, you hear virtually nothing from their news, no proper research being done to address the problem. Silence. One would think perhaps they don't have problems, but if you looked properly you'd find out that's false. They simply cover $hit up, bury their heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist. Or in fact, promote the problem. (They have no problem putting up a holier than though face though, hypocrites.) Facing the problem is well, haram, and no one wants to go to (imaginary) hell. That's irrational fear right there causing terrible harm. Untold amounts of very real victims, their rights egregiously harmed, with no voice. This because society, friends and family included many times, brands the victims themselves as the perpetrators. This mostly out of fear - there are other reasons, but fear is a chief culprit.

Then of course, same sort of fear hinders addressing even victimless crimes rationally, like the simple issue of consensual premarital sex. Better yet, consensual sex between adulterers. They now somehow justify it as an offense that is punishable by stoning one to death. I don't know about you, but that's some stone age $hit to me. Preposterous and completely bat$hit insane over reaction to the issue. As inane a solution as one could possibly imagine, of course, reinforced by the good and irrational fear of what happens to one after one dies.

Drugs, for the most part, get the same type of treatment. A lot of over reacting due to fear. A willingness to pretend people don't take drugs despite clear evidence to the contrary. Most drug users will harm you or any other person in no way whatsoever, and indeed may even be more productive when under one influence or the other. Sure, there is potential for harm, but in many cases like the good doctor pointed out, horse riding is even more dangerous. That's some irrational fear right there. The result of this? Rather than our managing the situation reasonably like with alcohol, aiding one to identify potential problems and dealing with them effectively, we get some rather silly laws that actively restrict people's rights and we even expend valuable resources on them.

striktlymi:
Well weigraf, consent does not give one the right to take the life of another. This really has nothing to do with personal morality. Taking the life of another is wrong and especially in the manner Armin took the life of his victim. He also realized this and was sorry for this crime. I won't dwell on this now cause it would be more appropriate to discuss this when we argue about euthanasia.

At least we agree that polygamy is not 'victim-less'.


Thanks!

Yes, euthenasia coming up.
We do recognize victims for polygamy, but we recognize different victims I believe.


Much better now, thanks for allowing for the edit!

wiegraf:

Ah, but you still misunderstand, their rights in these matters hold as much weight as random person x's rights. They have no say in a person's actions, non at all, so long as said person owes them nothing. Again, no one was born to slave for family. Like I pointed out, these same people who want to do the 'best' for family members for instance force their daughters into marriages against their will, sometimes abusive marriages even. They have no right, non at all, non at all.

What I meant to say is of course you're very welcome to your opinion, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced in this situation.



This changes little of what's already been said. The alcohol example is a valid one because alcohol is indeed more harmful than most drugs, and being kept reasonably in check. Even if you personally don't approve of it, I would say you don't have the right to impose your will on the responsible users, as they certainly don't harm you in any way. Also, why do alcohol lovers get a free pass and others don't? It makes no sense, and again, this IS victimless. Family's concerns are not an individuals concerns so long as he owes nothing.

As for the red bit, the aim is not for government to do nothing, but for government to regulate thereby ensuring at least some sort of safety, like with gambling or alcohol.

And an irresponsible person is going to be irresponsible, you cannot blame the majority who are responsible for their actions. At least, you cannot hinder them legally. Again, look at muslims, we can't go about getting rid of them because of terrorists now can we?

Consider also that a hypocritical stance has never helped anyone. Consider rap.e for instance, you have good numbers from the west about the number of victims, types, etc. Now switch to a conservative islamic country for example, you hear virtually nothing from their news. No proper research being done to address the problem. Mum. One would expect perhaps they don't have problems, but if one looked more closely you'd find out that's false, they just cover up $hit. Bury their heads in the sand, pretend it does not exist. Or even worse, pretend it's not a problem. Untold amounts of victims with no voice, because society and government brands they the victims themselves, perpetrators. Then of course, there's also the simple issue of consensual premarital sex...

Anyways, what to take from this, is their hypocrisy in dealing with the situation. It's rather similar to treatment drugs get. Drugs are not here, not a problem, let's just bury our heads in the sand.

As a practical example, consider driving. With marijuana laws turning around now in the states, science is looking for ways to determine how much pot brah has smoked before going on the wheel. When this is done, the average pot head would at least know just how much blunt he could consume before hitting the road. Friends can monitor his intake. If caught by authorities, they can determine clearly that this brah has been smoking a bit too much, hence the problem. This measure alone has now added an element of safety to the practice, a way to determine it's effects. We can now separate they mythical effects from the real effects, and tackle said real effects effectively. Not bury our heads in the sand and pretend no one smokes before driving. Or perhaps pretend no one has sex before marriage, and miss y's pregnancy is a result of an immaculate conception. Or worse, rap.e victims being ignored.




Caused by irrational fear, irrational fear is never good. If drugs were regulated then it would be much easier to track down the drugs used to put these victims under control, no? The average person would also be able to recognize the effects of these drugs if he came across someone under their influence, no? And the trafficking would still go on sadly, drugs or no. It is not a vital part of the forced sex trade. A trade which probably wouldn't exist if there were a legal, regulated sex trade mind you.




Yes, euthenasia coming up.
We do recognize victims for polygamy, but we recognize different victims I believe.


So little time atm, no vex, I'll have to edit this later...

Morning wiegraf,

I will wait for your edit.

Yosh! It's much better now, thanks for the wait.

This thread looks like it might have some meat on it, so with your indulgence I will posit my two cents worth. Indeed as you have alluded to in the question, the path to unravelling this conundrum would depend on the prism (philosophies if you like) through which we view these actions. Instead of taking each act individually, I will instead attempt to look at the questions through a sampling of disparate philosophical views.

Utilitarian Principle: This view looks to the utility (benefit) of the act, as opposed to the disbenefit to others. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). Under this rule, we can look at all the actions enunciated in your question and raise a simple query, what benefit does an individual derive by engaging in those acts, if the benefit of those actions are thought to outweigh the disbenefit to others, then under this principle we can argue that acts of bestiality (pleasure), prostitution (monetary gain) have a utility that should not be denied to the actor, as opposed to the disbenefit of disgust, moral concerns and the like. So the good of the few could outseigh the good of the many.

Social Contract: John Dunne said: 'no man is an island', within a social contract individuals give up a certain sense of that individuality in order to get along with others (this philosophy directly challenges Nietzche Superman Theory, which says One Man overall, or do what you think you can get away with, we won't discuss that here), so under this, even though there might be a utility to the actor, the greater good of society might not wanting you engaging in those actions. Let's take drugs, Society as a whole might feel that allowing an individual to engage in this might threaten the social fabric, might lead to anarchy and a rejection of social norms, whatever excuse you like. So under this philosophy as opposed to the Utilitarianism, the good of the many outweigh the 'needs' of the few. This is where you get into discussions of what the government should or should not do etcetera.

Hedonism: Do what you want, the search for pleaure, even through pain. This philosophy allows for anything, ultimately you exercise control over your own needs and wants, but this can also stretch to include others who consent to you using them to derive pleasure so ultimately getting pleasure is the only intrinsic 'good'.

Christian Philosophy: 'Don't you know, that your body is a temple', 'Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial', I believe that these two verses are the controlling texts that we need to focus on, in this final view point. Your body is a temple, ergo, what you do with it, must be pleasing to God, even though you are allowed to do anything, the context within which you do it, is as important as the act itself. You want to have sex, go ahead, just make sure it's with your spouse, you want to do drugs, by all means, just make sure that it is prescribed to cure an ill. You can't blaspheme or engage in bestiality because that is not the proper use of your body.

I could go on, but I will stop here, ultimately the answer to this question has already been answered for you, by and large, by your society, your upbringing and your own personal belief system.

scarred: This thread looks like it might have some meat on it, so with your indulgence I will posit my two cents worth. Indeed as you have alluded to in the question, the path to unravelling this conundrum would depend on the prism (philosophies if you like) through which we view these actions. Instead of taking each act individually, I will instead attempt to look at the questions through a sampling of disparate philosophical views.

Utilitarian Principle: This view looks to the utility (benefit) of the act, as opposed to the disbenefit to others. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). Under this rule, we can look at all the actions enunciated in your question and raise a simple query, what benefit does an individual derive by engaging in those acts, if the benefit of those actions are thought to outweigh the disbenefit to others, then under this principle we can argue that acts of bestiality (pleasure), prostitution (monetary gain) have a utility that should not be denied to the actor, as opposed to the disbenefit of disgust, moral concerns and the like. So the good of the few could outseigh the good of the many.

Social Contract: John Dunne said: 'no man is an island', within a social contract individuals give up a certain sense of that individuality in order to get along with others (this philosophy directly challenges Nietzche Superman Theory, which says One Man overall, or do what you think you can get away with, we won't discuss that here), so under this, even though there might be a utility to the actor, the greater good of society might not wanting you engaging in those actions. Let's take drugs, Society as a whole might feel that allowing an individual to engage in this might threaten the social fabric, might lead to anarchy and a rejection of social norms, whatever excuse you like. So under this philosophy as opposed to the Utilitarianism, the good of the many outweigh the 'needs' of the few. This is where you get into discussions of what the government should or should not do etcetera.

Hedonism: Do what you want, the search for pleaure, even through pain. This philosophy allows for anything, ultimately you exercise control over your own needs and wants, but this can also stretch to include others who consent to you using them to derive pleasure so ultimately getting pleasure is the only intrinsic 'good'.

Christian Philosophy: 'Don't you know, that your body is a temple', 'Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial', I believe that these two verses are the controlling texts that we need to focus on, in this final view point. Your body is a temple, ergo, what you do with it, must be pleasing to God, even though you are allowed to do anything, the context within which you do it, is as important as the act itself. You want to have sex, go ahead, just make sure it's with your spouse, you want to do drugs, by all means, just make sure that it is prescribed to cure an ill. You can't blaspheme or engage in bestiality because that is not the proper use of your body.

I could go on, but I will stop here, ultimately the answer to this question has already been answered for you, by and large, by your society, your upbringing and your own personal belief system.

Good afternoon scarred,

This is very clever! Allowing the questioner answer his own questions by tapping from his personal experiences and the experiences of others.

Those philosophical view points are widely known and I will say I agree with some of them but now that we can think for ourselves, what do you as an individual think about those 'crimes'?

Are you of the opinion that they are 'victiml-less' or not? What argument can you put forth to support your stance?

You seem like a rather intelligent individual and I would love to know what your personal thoughts are on the matter.

PS: Wiegraf I will respond to your post soon enough!

Thank you!

My personal philosophy is an amalgam of those that I enunciated and even more that I did not have time to put down. Even though this philosophy continues to evolve, at present I am at the 'do unto others' stage. If you look at the question you asked (which was very smart by the way) it includes actions that a) only affect (negatively or positively) the actor and b) affectS others. In truth one would think that actions that only affect ones self should not be legislated, since the benefit or disbenefit is borne wholly by the actor. If we extrapolate this further, we could say that only when your actions affect others should questions of societal contracts be considered. This presents a slippery slope though, because one could argue that most actions we take are not taken in a vacuum and would therefore affect others.

If you engage in bestiality for instance, but the animal is yours, other people could have developed feelings for that animal and any harm to it could be seen as detrimental to them as well. If you take drugs that impair your abililty and in your diminished capacity cause harm, one can draw a causal link between the drug use and harm to others. So in society is it possible to act solely in a vacuum, I will confess that I don't know.

The deeper you dig however you start to realize, that a lot of our social interactions have to do with systems of control. The question is not just about the possible harm that you can cause, it now becomes an issue of social engineering, how to control how you think, how you behave, what information is given to you. These are the things that are now rudimentary in any given society. Once you take the decision to be part of a greater whole then you sacrifice 'personal' for 'societal'. Otherwise you risk acting outside of society, sociopathically.

And yet here is my problem, the world is becoming more liberal, society has to make way for a wide variety of view points (a lot of which I do not share), so now what is personal is also within the purview of societal legislation, in other words what is personal is no longer sacrosanct. Personally, I can not ascribe my beliefs unto others, what makes me 'tick' might seem foreign to you. So my philosophy must at the same time allow me to function in that society and yet allow me to remain true to my given Truths. So, whilst as a believer I may not condone a certain thing, to remain within the society I have chose to live I MUST allow for your self expression (to the extent that it does not cause me a disbenefit) so that you don't interfere with mine.

It is worth commenting though that the actions that you have brough up draw in sharp relief the distinction between what is personal and therefore no one's business, and what is not, in which case the larger society step in and legislate my actions, and this fight has been going on a long time. If the individual wins, you have anarchy, if society wins, you have a sanitized police state. If I was a betting man, I'd say _________________has already won.

@scarred, that is a great post. I used to think philosophy was big obfuscated books telling you stuff you already know. Well, I still do, but I wasn't aware it did as well as you just demonstrated. True, I've come across those philosophies, but I never really paid attention, heh. Thanks for that.

You rightly point out that this is mostly a struggle between individual rights and society's demands. My stance is rather obvious, I'm with individual. You also rightly point out that that may not be practical. However, it's to be expected. You cannot have extremes with matters like these, just like you cannot have a completely capitalist or socialist state, there's always compromise.

I would also say that as far as pleasing others/society is concerned, as you cannot please everyone, why go through that route? Sure, you could compromise and say please only the majority, ignore the minority, but majority really isn't always right. Neither is an individual, but at least he's making his own choices, if he screws up then he has no one else to blame. He was not forced to do anything against his will. Really, why bend over for society's whims if you're already productive (tax payer, job generator, etc). You've done your part.

So generally, I would prefer when building laws, individual rights take precedence over societal wants. Obviously not in every instance, but where ever it can be helped. Most victimless crimes of course I view as an individual's concern. So long as one isn't infringing on another's rights, government shouldn't be imposing itself on its citizens.

Question if you will,
what philosophies would you say fueled US founding fathers? Not exactly a question that can be answered easily I know, but just give me your opinion.


I think it was jefferson or his chosen heir that used the term 'tyranny of the majority'. Extreme cases of that concept explained here (I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Good Morning Wiegraf,

You make some very TRUE (capital for emphasis)statements in your post, the primordial need of philosophical discourse is understanding the interaction between the individual and society. What you find inevitably is that most interpretation of that interaction is formed by a bias imposed on that philosopher by his society. One of the few Philosophers that tried to exclude that bias was a gentleman named John Rawls, and what he said was very interesting. He said that if individuals were allowed to make laws, without knowing what their social standing would be, prior to making those laws, then the laws that they would make would favour the weakest individual in society. It is called the Veil of Ignorance theory.

So, for instance, if you did not know what your sexual preference was going to be, you would make laws that favoured homosexuals, or if you did not know, what your economic standing would be, you would make laws that favoured the poor. So I completely understand, when you say you would "...would prefer when building laws, individual rights take precedence over societal wants."

To your question, what were the Philosophies of the Founding Fathers of America. I think to answer that question we must first be conversant with what they were trying to achieve in the society that they were trying to create. Remember that most of the early pilgrims were victims of religious intolerance, indentured servitude, economic persecutions and the like. So I think that it is a good starting point to state that the foundational basis for their new society would have been a rejection of a lot of the societal norms in the Europe in general, but Great Britain in particular.

At the onset of this grand adventure, called America, the British did impose a system of rule. America, like Nigeria was a colony of the British. Once it became evident that this new venture was going to be profitable, they made sure that their interests were well represented. A vast majority of the settlements along the Eatern Seaboard of these United States bear a marked similarity to the original locations they were named for. There were even crown appointed Governors from New England to the Carolinas. For all intent and purposes the US was the UK writ large in those days. So the crown was making a fortune. They could tax their colonies, have them raise Militia at their own expense, charge crippling tarrifs and still write their laws for them in London.

It must have come as a shock for these 'new Americans' to wake up one day to discover that that which they had fled from, had not only followed them here, but that by and large, there was no difference in the colonies and what they had fled from. Yet the trials and tribulations that they had endured in taming this new land, must have made them more willing to throw off the shackles of British Rule and seek independence by allying themselves to the French.

There is no hard and fast answer to this, but I will take as my cue one of the statements from an earlier American document that states that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...', in their estimation British rule was the very antithesis of this and both states of being (independent and subjects of the crown), were not only morally incompatible, but also not in keeping with the life that they had come to forge for themselves here. Jefferson said ' I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America'. The issue of independence was made real once the Fouding Fathers realized that they could not achieve for themselves as men what they wanted whilst still tied to the British Yoke.

The Declaration of Independence was a complete and total rejection of British Rule, for in stating to the British that they would rather be equal partners than servants, they had come to realize that the forging of a 'more perfect union', could not be underatking whilst still tied to the British. That in my mind is the quick and dirty of it.

^^^

That reads to me like some form of utilitarian, like what I had in mind...

...yes, yes, I know it's more complicated than that, but who wouldn't want Jefferson on his side?

scarred: Good Morning Wiegraf,

You make some very TRUE (capital for emphasis)statements in your post, the primordial need of philosophical discourse is understanding the interaction between the individual and society. What you find inevitably is that most interpretation of that interaction is formed by a bias imposed on that philosopher by his society. One of the few Philosophers that tried to exclude that bias was a gentleman named John Rawls, and what he said was very interesting. He said that if individuals were allowed to make laws, without knowing what their social standing would be, prior to making those laws, then the laws that they would make would favour the weakest individual in society. It is called the Veil of Ignorance theory.

So, for instance, if you did not know what your sexual preference was going to be, you would make laws that favoured homosexuals, or if you did not know, what your economic standing would be, you would make laws that favoured the poor. So I completely understand, when you say you would "...would prefer when building laws, individual rights take precedence over societal wants."

To your question, what were the Philosophies of the Founding Fathers of America. I think to answer that question we must first be conversant with what they were trying to achieve in the society that they were trying to create. Remember that most of the early pilgrims were victims of religious intolerance, indentured servitude, economic persecutions and the like. So I think that it is a good starting point to state that the foundational basis for their new society would have been a rejection of a lot of the societal norms in the Europe in general, but Great Britain in particular.

At the onset of this grand adventure, called America, the British did impose a system of rule. America, like Nigeria was a colony of the British. Once it became evident that this new venture was going to be profitable, they made sure that their interests were well represented. A vast majority of the settlements along the Eatern Seaboard of these United States bear a marked similarity to the original locations they were named for. There were even crown appointed Governors from New England to the Carolinas. For all intent and purposes the US was the UK writ large in those days. So the crown was making a fortune. They could tax their colonies, have them raise Militia at their own expense, charge crippling tarrifs and still write their laws for them in London.

It must have come as a shock for these 'new Americans' to wake up one day to discover that that which they had fled from, had not only followed them here, but that by and large, there was no difference in the colonies and what they had fled from. Yet the trials and tribulations that they had endured in taming this new land, must have made them more willing to throw off the shackles of British Rule and seek independence by allying themselves to the French.

There is no hard and fast answer to this, but I will take as my cue one of the statements from an earlier American document that states that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...', in their estimation British rule was the very antithesis of this and both states of being (independent and subjects of the crown), were not only morally incompatible, but also not in keeping with the life that they had come to forge for themselves here. Jefferson said ' I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America'. The issue of independence was made real once the Fouding Fathers realized that they could not achieve for themselves as men what they wanted whilst still tied to the British Yoke.

The Declaration of Independence was a complete and total rejection of British Rule, for in stating to the British that they would rather be equal partners than servants, they had come to realize that the forging of a 'more perfect union', could not be underatking whilst still tied to the British. That in my mind is the quick and dirty of it.

You write and think very well. Might I ask what informed your moniker (scarred). It hurts.

And lo and behold, I awake to this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/9866949/Iceland-considers-pornography-ban.html


Apparently they intend to ban it to protect the women involved. Rather silly imo, but at least they try to justify it using victims. Another ban which demonstrates how silly some 'sins' as crimes are would be the ban on women driving in saudi.

Anyways, a new contender has arrived

Pron.

I can't find my favorite 'islam for muslims' thread on the subject. While reading that thread you'd think the poor addict was hitler himself based on the amount of guilt heaped on him. I suppose our muslims overlord have deleted the thread.

^^^ I just read the story and I see that the Interior Minister referred specifically to "violent" por.nography. If that is the case (i do not say that it is), then that is an apt step. I have seen violent po.rnography before and I can tell you that there are all sorts of sick and twisted ideas that are a veritable danger to everybody. There is por.nography that deals with se.xual murder, torture, body dismemberment, strangling, and the like. There are people whose se.xual inclinations tend toward such and it is not wise to feed such inclinations (especially for young people - who the minister also specifically mentioned as the target of the law - so i guess pretty much like not allowing minors to buy cigarettes and alcohol, which is normal all over the west). Feeding them helps intensify the desire to commit such acts and this often leads to murder, kidnappings, illegal detention, torture, and other sick and twisted things far removed from the realm of even normal B/DSM.

Haven said that: I would quote a British member of the House of Lords many decades ago, when accused of patronizing pr.ostitutes, he responded in parliament - "Of course it is well known that every decent gentleman has recourse to pr.ostitutes!"

Good day wiegraf,

Sorry I abandoned this 'project' for a while...I guess I am kinda lazy when it comes to lengthy arguments.

wiegraf: Note, whenever I use the word victims, I use it the way I described above (rights based)

What I was trying to say (perhaps needlessly) is of course you're very welcome to your opinion, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced in this situation.

Yes I agree with the above. One's opinion is his/her inalienable right.

wiegraf:
I think you misunderstood my position on family/friends as victims, their rights in these matters hold as much weight as random person x's rights. And in this case, the family's rights are NOT being infringed on, it's the opposite.

I agree with you on the above to the extent that the individual does not infringe on the rights of his family and friends. But in the event that the individual turns, say, his wife to a punching bag each time he is under the influence of drugs, then it can't be said that the rights of the wife has not been infringed upon.

wiegraf:
So long as someone owes them nothing they have no say in a person's actions, non at all. Good intentions are no justification for impeding another's rights. Hitler had good intentions, so did bin laden, etc.

Again, no one was born to slave for family. Like I pointed out, on a daily basis simpler infractions occur. For instance these same people who want to do the 'best' for family members force their daughters into marriages against their will, sometimes abusive marriages even. Or would insist you don't have a blood transfusion even if your life depended on it were they were JWs. They have no right, non at all, non at all.

I understand the above but do not completely agree with them. I will pass, considering that it's not the crux of the matter.

wiegraf:
Unlike bestiality it's not a case of two wrongs don't make a right, so alcohol is indeed a valid case study. It's not a case of alcohol is wrong but we allow it therefore we should allow other drugs, then having that argument rebuked on the basis that drugs are bad, just because we allow one form does not mean we should the others (like I did with meat consumption and bestiality). With drugs there are no victims involved, with bestiality there are.

C'mon wiegraf, as I have pointed out before, do you honestly believe that there are no victims involved?? It is my opinion that you are not considering the various scenarios here before arriving at your conclusion. Have you considered why a doctor is barred from the use of narcotics (irrespective of when he/she uses it) but is permitted to use alcohol or/and cigarette at designated times?

The risk of becoming addicted to major narcotics like heroin, nicotine and cocaine is higher than that of alcohol. A doctor who cannot discharge his duties appropriately because of his dependence on drugs, infringe on the rights of his patients to provide proper medical care and as such he can be said to have brought harm to them...Wiegraf, it is known that addiction to any substance can make a man do what he ought not, even bring harm to someone else in order to get a quick fix.

Would you consider a government responsible if they permit the use of these highly addictive substances that can lead to the harm of other citizens? If we agree that doctors and possibly pilots should not take drugs, then can a public law be said to be fair if every citizen cannot tap from its provisions?? You argue that the fears of government in placing a ban on narcotics is unfounded but I say that the fears are real considering the rate of addiction.

The kind of regulation you suggest are mainly 'detective'. Good laws should be 'preventive' in my opinion. A law that waits for an act to happen before it reacts cannot be said to be for the greater good. Narcotics are known to numb the senses...a man whose senses are numb cannot be said to be coherent enough to determine what is right or wrong at the time, which in my view renders the laws created purposeless considering that there is nothing like a legal limit for narcotics. The only way to avoid this numbness of the senses is total avoidance, hence the laws in place are in order in my opinion.


Thank you!

striktlymi:
C'mon wiegraf, as I have pointed out before, do you honestly believe that there are no victims involved?? It is my opinion that you are not considering the various scenarios here before arriving at your conclusion. Have you considered why a doctor is barred from the use of narcotics (irrespective of when he/she uses it) but is permitted to use alcohol or/and cigarette at designated times?

This is exactly my point. Why does alcohol get a free pass? There is no cogent reason, non at all. Do you honestly think drunks are better behaved than potheads? Or even heroine users? Despite how ridiculously easy it is to get addicted to heroine (note: in the case of heroine bans are justifiable for this reason, for most other drugs, no) heroine users usually just want to be left alone once high, you know this, yes? When looking for money to support their habit is when they become pests. Now, if addictions were managed better...

striktlymi:
The risk of becoming addicted to major narcotics like heroin, nicotine and cocaine is higher than that of alcohol. A doctor who cannot discharge his duties appropriately because of his dependence on drugs, infringe on the rights of his patients to provide proper medical care and as such he can be said to have brought harm to them...Wiegraf, it is known that addiction to any substance can make a man do what he ought not, even bring harm to someone else in order to get a quick fix.

So would a drunk doctor. Actually, probably more so than most other doctors on another particular kind of high. At least one can tell when faced with a drunk doctor that he's drunk and deal with the problem adequately. That is possible because, again, alcohol is managed properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dependence

wiki:
About 12% of American adults have had an alcohol dependence problem at some time in their life.

The source
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482349

That's 36 million drunks at one time or the other, that's a lot of drunks.

Doctor breaks the law, he should be punished adequately. As with all other rules setup for his practice. Negligence is negligence.

striktlymi:
Would you consider a government responsible if they permit the use of these highly addictive substances that can lead to the harm of other citizens? If we agree that doctors and possibly pilots should not take drugs, then can a public law be said to be fair if every citizen cannot tap from its provisions?? You argue that the fears of government in placing a ban on narcotics is unfounded but I say that the fears are real considering the rate of addiction.

Again, alcohol.

Professionals have codes of conduct. They break them? They pay the consequences, simple.

striktlymi:
The kind of regulation you suggest are mainly 'detective'. Good laws should be 'preventive' in my opinion. A law that waits for an act to happen before it reacts cannot be said to be for the greater good. Narcotics are known to numb the senses...a man whose senses are numb cannot be said to be coherent enough to determine what is right or wrong at the time, which in my view renders the laws created purposeless considering that there is nothing like a legal limit for narcotics. The only way to avoid this numbness of the senses is total avoidance, hence the laws in place are in order in my opinion.

This is you infringing on the rights of others and not the other way round. Person sitting at home getting high and not bothering anyone isn't infringing on anyone's rights. You on the other hand, demanding he does not get high because of a potential crime, are infringing on his rights. It's may even be worse than persecuting people for thought crimes in some ways, as with thought crimes the person may really be thinking about something rather nefarious/disturbing even if he isn't bothering anyone, on the other hand our high person may have the very best intentions/thoughts along with not bothering anyone. In fact, the high person may even be more productive in some situations with some high or the other, making denying their rights to do as they please with their bodies seem even more atrocious as you're now directly hindering their productivity. You'd be punishing people for potential crimes, rather unjustifiably.

From what I can tell, you have no real problems with alcohol because it has managed to attain socially acceptability, not because it is less harmful. It very clearly is more harmful than most other popular narcotics. Using that logic you probably wouldn't find a problem with other drugs were they more popular and acceptable. I hope I don't have to point out how that sort of reasoning is faulty. Something being popular does not automatically make it right, that much is very obvious. Most people once found slavery acceptable, I don't think they were right, etc etc. And for the most part, note, alcohol cannot be ignored therefore it is likely to be popular in most societies, more so than the other narcotics. Most societies have no choice but to support it else there'd be considerable chaos. That's how powerful (and perhaps dangerous) a drug it is, it requires sheepery of islamic proportions to eradicate its use.

striktlymi:
Thank you!

And you!!! So little time as well

Deep Sight: ^^^ I just read the story and I see that the Interior Minister referred specifically to "violent" por.nography. If that is the case (i do not say that it is), then that is an apt step. I have seen violent po.rnography before and I can tell you that there are all sorts of sick and twisted ideas that are a veritable danger to everybody. There is por.nography that deals with se.xual murder, torture, body dismemberment, strangling, and the like. There are people whose se.xual inclinations tend toward such and it is not wise to feed such inclinations (especially for young people - who the minister also specifically mentioned as the target of the law - so i guess pretty much like not allowing minors to buy cigarettes and alcohol, which is normal all over the west). Feeding them helps intensify the desire to commit such acts and this often leads to murder, kidnappings, illegal detention, torture, and other sick and twisted things far removed from the realm of even normal B/DSM.

Haven said that: I would quote a British member of the House of Lords many decades ago, when accused of patronizing pr.ostitutes, he responded in parliament - "Of course it is well known that every decent gentleman has recourse to pr.ostitutes!"

I'm not sure the bold is justifiable, some would even argue that make belief actually helps those who are truly disturbed by providing them a fantasy, and outlet which they could use to quell any harmful desires. But even without that it sounds a bit like the claims that video games encourage violence.

For the red, I'm not sure that is the case. Also, who decided what is too violent? They're straddling the line with censorship, they're dangerously close to persecuting thought crimes.

Generally speaking, minors shouldn't be allowed around all p.orn. Too much responsibility too quickly. Unregulated p.orn, models not in unions where they can be monitored etc, shouldn't be releasing commercial material etc. Even private material should be monitored in some form or the other (assuming it shows one having his/her rights infringed on) etc. Regulation and monitoring rather than outright bans. Less than perfect, but workable

Good morning wiegraf,

Sorry for responding late again...

If I understand you correctly, your arguments are not focused on every drug but some specific drugs (though you consider that they are in the majority)....
I understand your argument for these kind of drugs with respect to the misuse of alcohol...I agree that a drunk is no better than a pothead...getting drunk can lead to a number of things, including causing harm to someone else basically because when one is drunk the individual temporarily loses his ability to act rationally and in that state he is capable of almost anything.

But wiegraf do we now make a justification for the use of some certain drugs because alcohol is permitted irrespective of its inherent ability to cause someone else bodily harm? In my opinion, I don't think this is appropriate...the best I think we can do is argue that both can lead one to commit some very terrible acts against another and in those times, both are not victimless.

My personal 'beef' against narcotics is the ability it has to numb the senses...this can lead one to harm others in some cases though like you said there are people who after taking drugs, would prefer to be on their own but this is no guaranty that they can't be dangerous all the same...when someone looses the sense of right and wrong that individual is capable of anything...this is what hard drugs and drunkenness do to individuals and this is where my ish with both comes.

If it can be proven that taking the drugs you suggest will not lead to the numbness of the senses then I will agree with you that the ban placed on it is grossly uncalled for and if a user decides to harm another it will not be because of the drugs but because he chose to...but sadly hard drugs can impair ones ability to decipher between what is right and what is wrong and as such times it can be blamed for some acts of violence against another.

If an individual has the right to take hard drugs then it can be argued that the next man has the right to protect himself from one who has lost the ability to decipher between right and wrong conduct...the individual protecting himself need not wait for things to go 'left' before acting for the simple reason that the person who is high on drugs is a walking time bomb...
I think its best for the government to come in and regulate the use of these drugs...regulation can also mean a total ban on the use of such substance...

^^^
Never mind the being 'late' thing abeg. There's the real world to see to.

Quick response; but alcohol is clearly worse than many of these drugs and has been managed reasonably. It also 'numbs the senses', abi? I'm not for a ban on alcohol as most users aren't disturbing anyone and the alcohol does indeed add value to their lives. The same should hold for all other similar drugs.

Those that can make you rather physically sick though with withdrawal, or would undoubtedly make one say violent, etc, need to be examined carefully.

wiegraf: ^^^
Never mind the being 'late' thing abeg. There's the real world to see to.

Quick response; but alcohol is clearly worse than many of these drugs and has been managed reasonably. It also 'numbs the senses', abi? I'm not for a ban on alcohol as most users aren't disturbing anyone and the alcohol does indeed add value to their lives. The same should hold for all other similar drugs.

Those that can make you rather physically sick though with withdrawal, or would undoubtedly make one say violent, etc, need to be examined carefully.

I agree with the above but we should consider that alcohol is kinda different though...small quantities might not make one lose his/her ability to decipher between right and wrong unless the individual decides to abuse it and take more than is needed.

If the drugs you speak of can be shown to have this kind of effect i.e it can be reliably shown that small quantities will not make the individual lose his/her sense of right judgment then I will be fine with it and advocate for some form of regulation as against an outright ban because then no one would be in any form of danger when a user is being 'responsible'...

^^^

That has been shown many times. This I've quoted before, but here's the direct source

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext#article_upsell



On another note, not that it matters much but even heavy hitters, ex-presidents (who need not worry about votes anymore) and such for instance, are 'wtf?!' with the situation as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Commission_on_Drug_Policy

This article by Jimmy Carter has some hard numbers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?_r=0

Edit: Their site
http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/commission-of-world-leaders-urges-end-to-failed-drug-war-fundamental-reforms-of-global-drug-prohibition-regime/

My main issue remains the rights one, but they have and elaborate on the other decent arguments as well

wiegraf: ^^^

That has been shown many times. This I've quoted before, but here's the direct source

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext#article_upsell



On another note, not that it matters much but even heavy hitters, ex-presidents (who need not worry about votes anymore) and such for instance, are 'wtf?!' with the situation as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Commission_on_Drug_Policy

This article by Jimmy Carter has some hard numbers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?_r=0

I have seen these...

With respect to the OP it is clear that narcotics is not victimless as it can bring harm to others.

If we look at it relatively, we can deduce that alcohol seem to be the more likely to cause harm to others than the other drugs.

...from the data presented in the pictorial diagram, it is clear that all other drugs (including alcohol) has the ability to impair ones mental ability with the exception of only tobacco.

This says a lot...

striktlymi:

I have seen these...

With respect to the OP it is clear that narcotics is not victimless as it can bring harm to others.

If we look at it relatively, we can deduce that alcohol seem to be the more likely to cause harm to others than the other drugs.

It is clear to me they are victimless, very much so. A victim, for me and as far as the op is concerned, would be someone who's had his/her rights infringed on. The only victims here are the ones who are having their own rights, to do what they wish to with their bodies, abused.

Also, punishing potential crimes is the same as punishing thought crimes unless it can be shown that the potential crimes are very likely to become real crimes. This is not so with alcohol, we've managed to control alcohol, so why can we not control these lesser drugs?

wiegraf:

It is clear to me they are victimless, very much so. A victim, for me and as far as the op is concerned, would be someone who's had his/her rights infringed on. The only victims here are the ones who are having their own rights, to do what they wish to with their bodies, abused.

This is from the first link up there:

"MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places."

From the bold, we really can't say that this is victimless...causing harm to others is same as infringing on the rights of others...
Similarly, if you check the bar graph, you would notice that there is hardly a drug that is not related to crime, though in varying degrees...this can also include crimes meted against some other persons.

wiegraf:
Also, punishing potential crjavascript:void(0);imes is the same as punishing thought crimes unless it can be shown that the potential crimes are very likely to become real crimes.

...I thought the data showed actual crimes??

wiegraf:
This is not so with alcohol, we've managed to control alcohol, so why can we not control these lesser drugs?

I am of the opinion that alcohol is permitted because unlike narcotics, one can only get drunk when it is taken in excess...this I don't think is the same with narcotics...like I mentioned before, there is no threshold for narcotics or these 'lesser drugs' before one can get high.

striktlymi:

This is from the first link up there:

"MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places."

From the bold, we really can't say that this is victimless...causing harm to others is same as infringing on the rights of others...

The red, no it does not. Someone's gotten a promotion over me or gotten that coveted job hindering my chances at a fatter cheque, he's caused me harm. Has he hindered my rights? Not at all. Woman marries random infidel, family moans and complains. Was she harming them? They'd say yes. Was she infringing on any of their rights? Hell no. Even an irresponsible father need not necessarily be infringing on anyone's rights. Negligent? Yes. In need of medical help? Probably. That does not mean he's infringing on anyone's rights. However, these people would be classified as 'harmful' to friends and family.

As for actual crimes committed by people under the influence and the people who've genuinely had their rights infringed on, these people are victims, yes; of irresponsible users. Blaming the drug in these situations is not in anyway an excuse. The very vast majority of drinkers for instance have their drinks and don't infringe on anyone's rights, so why couldn't they? Many people commit many, many crimes for religious reasons as well yet we do not go about banning religions, do we? Religion (well, most of them) is not a good enough excuse for their behavior, just like drugs. Nobody forced them to do drugs or become religious, etc etc. So again, break the law? Pay the price.

Drugs that cause physical addiction of the non-trivial variety easily though are a different beast. Even if one wanted to stop abusing it would require quite the effort, bordering on impossible for some. In extreme cases even death. For these cases their will is effectively seriously tampered with, it could lead to situations essentially beyond their control in a sense, these shouldn't be legal IMO. Same way cults that befuddle/manipulate members heads in all sorts of manners and/or encourage illegal activity like asking members to say produce human heads etc etc, shouldn't be legal. You don't ban all religion because of that. Heroine would fall into this category, anything milder than alcohol would probably not.

striktlymi:
Similarly, if you check the bar graph, you would notice that there is hardly a drug that is not related to crime, though in varying degrees...this can also include crimes meted against some other persons.

Emphasis on the bold, 'can'. For the very vast majority of users of some of these drugs, it does not.

striktlymi:
...I thought the data showed actual crimes??

And those are punished. But you're suggesting we ban them because of potential crimes, not actual crimes.

striktlymi:
I am of the opinion that alcohol is permitted because unlike narcotics, one can only get drunk when it is taken in excess...this I don't think is the same with narcotics...like I mentioned before, there is no threshold for narcotics or these 'lesser drugs' before one can get high.

Every drug has a threshold. Every single one. Some low, some high. Alcohol's threshold is not exactly high, at all.(Not to mention it's overall effects when compared to other drugs. ) Comparing is not even easy as alcohol is consumed differently to most other narcotics, but you don't need to drink much before you're (potentially) causing trouble. Just two drinks an hour before a drive is enough to get most people (going by their body weight) arrested, that's how effective it is.

For the bold, alcohol is clearly a narcotic, and a harmful one at that, just a legal one.