| Just Adventure News : |
| Home - Forum Home |
| Page 3 of 3 : « ‹ |
| 22 FEB 2003 at 10:13pm | |
MichalNGrand Inquisitor  Posts : 7058 Joined: 14 SEP 2003 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (22 FEB 2003 9:52pm) Certainly not! And I never said that. A communist state could just as well be promoting drugs. As a matter of fact, communist countries were all very strongly anti-drug (because they were anti-freedom) The goal of communism is to get rid of the state alltogether. Not at all. You're confusing communism with anarchy. The goal of communism is to have a state that provides for everyone. Yes, it is illegal and it's wrong. Just because someone doesn't bother to follow the law doesn't mean the law has lost its purpose. There is a big difference between "someone" and "most people". Yes there is and it is happening all around us! When a bag of cocaine is found in someone's luggage at an airport, the owner of that luggage gets busted! When someone is selling drugs on the street and a policeman happen to pass by and witness the whole thing, they arrest that person! That's enforcing drug laws, thank you very much... I know many people who at some time took drugs. I don't know anyone who got actualy busted for it. That to me means that the law enforcement isn't terribly efficient. This was only a comment based on your assumption that a lot of people are smoking marijuana just because it's illegal. If this is the case, why would that behaviour stop if you made marijuana legal. If it becomes legal, it loses the attractiveness of "forbidden fruit". Sure, people will still smoke pot, but no longer because they shouldn't. Well, it won't go away completely, but it will save quite a few lives... That is however only very tangentially related to whether drugs are legal or not. So, in what way would drug control be better if everyone could get it legally? For instance you could put big warning labels on the packaging, explaining all the bad stuff that can happen to you if you overdo it. And you could make sure that the drugs are not mixed with some toxic impurities and/or not too strong. Well, that's democracy, like it or leave it. The only way to get everything exactly like you want is to become a dictator yourself. That's not much of an argument is it You still haven't given any good reasons for using drugs, except the freedom to choose argument btw. To me, that is an extremely strong argument. But you seem to misunderstand my position. I'm not claiming that drugs are necessarily good. Just that everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to use them or not. Anyway why should there be a reason besides that people want to do it? What reason is there for playing computer games? BTW you have deftly avoided my question about Evercrack... why should computer games not be outlawed if people can get addicted to them (and they can!)? I forgot my sig. |
| Profile Search | |
| 22 FEB 2003 at 11:12pm | |
| Deleted User | Hmm, let's begin with the communist stuff. I still think this is departing from the issue. We could discuss communism in a separate thread. I apologize if I've made too hasty assumptions, but you did bring up the communism connection in the first place. There are other political ideologies that would have applied just as well, so it's not fair to make this connection sound so simple.Not at all. You're confusing communism with anarchy. The goal of communism is to have a state that provides for everyone.I don't know why I wrote that. That was not a good description at all. But communism cannot be summarized just by this goal. All forms of socialism apply to this. The communism exercised in the Soviet Union was using the state to forceably get rid of all forms of private ownership, with the idea that the state itself would dissolve when this goal was completed. The big mistake was that people forgot that once someone gains incredible power, that person is not likely to give it up that easily. There is a big difference between "someone" and "most people".Still, I seriously doubt that most people want drugs to be free, at least here in Sweden. I know many people who at some time took drugs. I don't know anyone who got actualy busted for it. That to me means that the law enforcement isn't terribly efficient.No. Law enforcement cannot concentrate on busting people at the end of the distribution line. That would simply not be possible. They should concentrate on stopping smuggling and big narcotics deals, thus limiting availability. If it becomes legal, it loses the attractiveness of "forbidden fruit". Sure, people will still smoke pot, but no longer because they shouldn't.But I believe that even though some of the people who would use drugs when they were illegal would not use drugs when they were legal, a whole lot of other people would start using drugs just because they could do it. For instance you could put big warning labels on the packaging, explaining all the bad stuff that can happen to you if you overdo it. And you could make sure that the drugs are not mixed with some toxic impurities and/or not too strong.They do this with tobacco products here in Sweden already, and I don't think it has much of an effect. People knows it's bad for their health already. That doesn't stop them from using it though. That's not much of an argument is itI think it is. You just cannot get anything you want in a democracy. I would like to return to your comment about what laws are good and what laws are bad again. Almost all laws protect people from bad things, at the expense of the individual's freedom. There is a trade-off between personal freedom and the protection of other people, and both sides have to be weighed against each other. In the case of drugs, I personally don't think the positive consequences for the individual outweighs the negative consequences for other people. To me, that is an extremely strong argument. But you seem to misunderstand my position. I'm not claiming that drugs are necessarily good. Just that everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to use them or not.No, I understand you are not claiming drugs are just good. But I think that scientific results and collective experience in the field accounts for something in relation to the judgement of the individual. Anyway why should there be a reason besides that people want to do it? What reason is there for playing computer games?There should be other reasons, because freedom of will alone cannot be the only judge. After all, Saddam Hussein wants to own nuclear weapons, doesn't he? Is that reason good enough to let him alone? BTW you have deftly avoided my question about Evercrack... why should computer games not be outlawed if people can get addicted to them (and they can!)?Ok, I will not avoid that question. You are right, there are potential negative aspects to computer games as well. The world isn't black-and-white. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. I happen to think that all drugs beyond what is currently legal where I live should stay illegal. I also don't think alcohol and cigarettes should be sold to minors. However, I don't think computer games pose a relevant threat to society the way heavy drugs do, so they should be kept legal. |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 12:04am | |
MissBSchattenjger  Posts : 2217 Joined: 15 OCT 2002 Status : Online | Hopefully, I'll be able to put a little different spin on the subject. To be honest, to legalize or not legalize is irrelevant to me--people can get whatever, whevever with little or no trouble from the police, and this stops the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. However, I think THE most important thing to do,legal or not, is to EDUCATE the public on the danger of using them!!! And THEN let them make their own decisions. I am the charge nurse in a dialysis facility that treats 120 patients 3 times a week with end-stage renal failure....I must say that 85-90% of my patients lost their renal function as a direct result of drug abuse. Some could give a crap as long as they got a high waiting on them when they get home. But others have told me that if only they knew the damage that drugs could do, they would have thought twice before trying it!! I'm referring mostly to heroin and cocaine use). From that point on, their life revolves around coming to dialysis treatments 3 times a week for 4 hours....the other option is death. It's very sad. My name is Bethany and I'm the daughter of Gamergal/Michelle. |
| Profile Search | |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 1:02am | |
MichalNGrand InquisitorPosts : 7058 Joined: 14 SEP 2003 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (22 FEB 2003 11:12pm) Yes, it is. The communism exercised in the Soviet Union was using the state to forceably get rid of all forms of private ownership, with the idea that the state itself would dissolve when this goal was completed. True, but that was always very far off in the future. No. Law enforcement cannot concentrate on busting people at the end of the distribution line. That would simply not be possible. See? So why make something illegal if there is no way to enforce it? Isn't that pointless and ultimately counterproductive? But I believe that even though some of the people who would use drugs when they were illegal would not use drugs when they were legal, a whole lot of other people would start using drugs just because they could do it. Well... anyone from the Netherlands here? I'm sure some studies must have been done there... I certainly don't see that country going down in flames just because they legalized some drugs. I think it is. You just cannot get anything you want in a democracy. No I can't. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything. In the case of drugs, I personally don't think the positive consequences for the individual outweighs the negative consequences for other people. We obviously won't agree on this. There should be other reasons, because freedom of will alone cannot be the only judge. After all, Saddam Hussein wants to own nuclear weapons, doesn't he? Is that reason good enough to let him alone? In theory, as long as he's not planning to use them for offense, why not? Why are some countries allowed to have nuclear weapons but not others? I can see why it is not desirable to let some countries to have them but it's extremely difficult to justify. Basically this requires the existence of someone who says "you are good", "you are bad". However, I don't think computer games pose a relevant threat to society the way heavy drugs do, so they should be kept legal. Don't worry, once you eradicate drugs, lots more people will get addicted to computer games I forgot my sig. |
| Profile Search | |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 12:00pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By MichalN (23 FEB 2003 1:02am) Well, if it's illegal to manufacture and sell drugs, what use is it to allow consumption? In Sweden, they outlawed buying sex from prostitutes. Of course that didn't stop the prostitutes to try and sell it, it just meant the buyers had to be more careful. Now it is also forbidden to sell sex. Well... anyone from the Netherlands here? I'm sure some studies must have been done there... I certainly don't see that country going down in flames just because they legalized some drugs.Well, some countries are more liberal than others. I should think there are studies pointing both ways in that case, but surely it is still a working society and everything. But I just can't see what the purpose for using these drugs are. What good does it do to people? Again, the freedom of choice argument can be used, but in any country this is a limited thing. Where it is liberal in one area, a country could be just as restrictive in another. The individual freedom cannot be graded above anything else. Then, we would have no laws at all. We obviously won't agree on this.Again, I ask you: What are the relevant social benefits of smoking marijuana? In theory, as long as he's not planning to use them for offense, why not? Why are some countries allowed to have nuclear weapons but not others? I can see why it is not desirable to let some countries to have them but it's extremely difficult to justify. Basically this requires the existence of someone who says "you are good", "you are bad".I agree that there is a lot of hypocracy in this area. The US. doesn't speak for one second about Israel, India and Pakistan, who all have nuclear weapons and are equally likely to use them for "bad" purposes. But this all has to do with balance of power and things going on behind closed doors, so let's not go into that further. What's important is to ask what good non-conventional weapons are at all. Does the free will argument count above the safety of the world. You seem to think so. And unlike you, I prefer living in a world where I know my neighbour isn't allowed to manufacture mustard gas in his basement. Don't worry, once you eradicate drugs, lots more people will get addicted to computer gamesUmm... I'd like to see the scientist able to prove that conclusion! |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 12:50pm | |
InieJourneyman  Posts : 856 Joined: 27 OCT 2002 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (23 FEB 2003 12:00pm) The main goal of the druglaws in the Netherlands concern themselves with regulation and prioritising. Contrary to what many may believe, it's still illegal to use and sell harddrugs over here. Soft drugs are allowed providing it's for pure personal use (there are limitations). I think this position is clear. And I for one am very happy that people who need these drugs for medicinal purposes don't have to go in a dodgy backalley to get their supply. What good does it do? I don't know. I know I like playing adventuregames, read books, drink the odd glass of wine. Does this do any good? No! I guess people who use soft drugs feel happy with it. It appears to be most relaxing (just like alcohol). I think it becomes a problem when there's 'too much' in front of it. Too much use of any addictive substance is a problem, either personal or social. I don't think it's possible to eradicate drug use. Man is always looking for something new and exciting. I've lived in this country all my life. I know where the coffeeshops are. I never had the inclination to try it. Of course there are people who use soft drugs. But a lot of them are just experimenting and quit when they go into the 'real world'. And some of them keep doing it. But they still have the ability to function okay. I'm not sure but it doesn't feel like we have more hard drugaddicts over here. So I think that the theory that softdrug users become hard drugusers or have a higher chance can't be proven. I totally agree with Gamergal. Give kids the education to make their own decisions. A decision to quit (or not to start) made by yourself is always better than a law that seems to be very difficult to be enforced. |
| Profile Search | |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 4:22pm | |
SirDaveGuild Master  Posts : 4950 Joined: 17 OCT 2002 Location: US Status : Offline | The greatest deterrent to mind-altering drugs: being an adventure gamer. It would be impossible to solve Riven sauced!
The future ain't what it used to be! |
| Profile Search | |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 9:40pm | |
MichalNGrand InquisitorPosts : 7058 Joined: 14 SEP 2003 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (23 FEB 2003 12:00pm) What use is it to forbid it if you are not prepared to enforce that? But I just can't see what the purpose for using these drugs are. What good does it do to people? Makes them feel good? Try it... Again, I ask you: What are the relevant social benefits of smoking marijuana? And again I ask, why should there be any? Since when are only activities with "relevant social benefit" allowed? What is the social benefit of drinking coffee? What is the social benefit of having sex purely for pleasure? Do you have any idea how much socially beneficial work could be done in the time thus "wasted"? What's important is to ask what good non-conventional weapons are at all. Not much good. But it's a kind of Pandora's box. Once you open it, you can't put things back. And unlike you, I prefer living in a world where I know my neighbour isn't allowed to manufacture mustard gas in his basement. I'd much rather live in a world where my neighbour has no intention of manufacturing mustard gas instead of being merely forbidden to do it Umm... I'd like to see the scientist able to prove that conclusion! It is not a conclusion. Just a prediction. I'm convinced that some people have a tendency to get addicted to something and removing one possible source of addiction doesn't fix that. I forgot my sig. |
| Profile Search | |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 11:12pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By MichalN (23 FEB 2003 9:40pm)You got a point there. But I'm not claiming there should be no intention to enforce it. People caught using heavy drugs would have them confiscated and would get a penalty according to the applying laws. But that doesn't mean the police are going to poke into everyone's social life 24 hours a day to enforce the law, as that would be both impossible in practice and a violation of personal integrity. As with any law, there are only so many resources to enforce them. And just to avoid confusion for anyone who's reading this. It may seem like I'm thinking that prohibition of heavy drugs is the way to go, but that is not the case. I think that there are much better ways of getting people off drugs. Education in schools is one example. In this discussion I'm merely trying to argue for the idea that laws against drugs has positive effects. Ok, let's go on... Makes them feel good? Try it...I am aware of that effect, but I don't use drugs because I believe that artificially induced temporary feelings of pleasure by blocking and/or stimulation of isolated brain functions just isn't the right way. Wow, that did sound awfully scientific! : I hope you get the message though... And again I ask, why should there be any? Since when are only activities with "relevant social benefit" allowed? What is the social benefit of drinking coffee? What is the social benefit of having sex purely for pleasure? Do you have any idea how much socially beneficial work could be done in the time thus "wasted"?No, I don't want to argue that only such activities should be allowed. That would be absurd. For one thing, it isn't possible to measure such a thing, so even if you argued for it for some reason, you could never put it into practical use. I don't want to ask you that question from that standpoint. What I'm trying to get at is that if you truly believe that no other reason than the free choice of the individual should be needed to argue against the application of a law, then there is no way in hell that you can convince me that you also think speed limits for driving should exist. Because if you do, your whole string of argument breaks apart. However, if you actually don't think so, I won't hold that against you. Please note, I'm not trying to assume anything about your opinions here. I want to illustrate my point that free will alone cannot be the decisive factor. I'm all for free will myself, as long as it can be justified. Not much good. But it's a kind of Pandora's box. Once you open it, you can't put things back.And I believe it is the same with heavy drugs. Had smoking of tobacco been discovered today, I would argue against putting it on the free market. But now that it exists, it's not going to go away easily, and simply outlawing it is not the right way to fight it. I'd much rather live in a world where my neighbour has no intention of manufacturing mustard gas instead of being merely forbidden to do itI would too, but that's a utopia. People should have the right to think whatever the hell they want, right? So unless every single person on earth suddenly becomes a perfectly rational individual (which would be kind of dull) we need some way of protecting ourselves against the likelyhood that someone turns his/her wacky ideas into reality. It is not a conclusion. Just a prediction. I'm convinced that some people have a tendency to get addicted to something and removing one possible source of addiction doesn't fix that.Yes, I also believe in scientific research indicating that some people are more "addictive" than others. But let's not bring examples like this into the discussion. Surely, it's not a likely scenario that heavy drug addicts one day will rise out of the gutter and say: "Hey, we're getting bored with this Heroine crap. Let's move on to the really heavy sh*t. And before you know it they are all out there playing Riven and triggers a new wave of crappy Myst-clones that finally suffocates the entire human race. It would make a funny movie though. How about this: Thousands of years in the future, an astronaut returns to earth from space, not knowing it really is earth. He then finds it populated by cultivated apes, who imprisons him and perform scientific experiments on him. But he escapes, and in the end of the movie he stands on a beach, looking up at the ruined statues of the Miller brothers, going "YOU MANIACS! YOU PLAYED IT! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!" |
| 23 FEB 2003 at 11:17pm | |
| Deleted User | This forum censorship thing really screwed up my message! "Moving on to the heavy nuts" didn't sound very much like what a drug addict would say, so I had to go back and edit it a little. |
| 24 FEB 2003 at 12:54am | |
MichalNGrand InquisitorPosts : 7058 Joined: 14 SEP 2003 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (23 FEB 2003 11:12pm) Right. All I'm saying that if the resources aren't there, passing such law is useless. And just to avoid confusion for anyone who's reading this. You sure managed to confuse me Just to make my point clear, I am really for liberalization. I am aware of that effect, but I don't use drugs because I believe that artificially induced temporary feelings of pleasure by blocking and/or stimulation of isolated brain functions just isn't the right way. Wow, that did sound awfully scientific! : I hope you get the message though... Yes, I got the message. I just happen to disagree. And before you get the wrong idea, I should say that I used drugs less than five times in my life, I don't smoke and drink very little. But I certainly like to have the options! BTW I think your above description (about inducing temporary feelings of pleasure through stimulation of isolated brain fuctions) still fits sex perfectly What I'm trying to get at is that if you truly believe that no other reason than the free choice of the individual should be needed to argue against the application of a law, then there is no way in hell that you can convince me that you also think speed limits for driving should exist. Because if you do, your whole string of argument breaks apart. No it won't. Speed limits are okay because they guarantee (in theory at least) the safety of others. Making drugs illegal seems to be aimed primarily at stopping people from doing stupid things themselves. To take this further, I'm for legalization of drugs but I have no problem with driving under influence being criminalized, because that clearly endangers others. I would too, but that's a utopia. People should have the right to think whatever the hell they want, right? So unless every single person on earth suddenly becomes a perfectly rational individual (which would be kind of dull) we need some way of protecting ourselves against the likelyhood that someone turns his/her wacky ideas into reality. The thing is, laws will not protect you. Pretty much every bad thing anyone can do to you is already illegal. But for law to work, it must be respected. And passing laws that are broken often and not enforced is one nice way to destroy the respect for the law. And before you know it they are all out there playing Riven and triggers a new wave of crappy Myst-clones that finally suffocates the entire human race. I can imagine one or two worse ways to go But he escapes, and in the end of the movie he stands on a beach, looking up at the ruined statues of the Miller brothers, going "YOU MANIACS! YOU PLAYED IT! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!" I forgot my sig. |
| Profile Search | |
| Page 3 of 3 : « ‹ |
Back to Top | Home | News | Articles | Forum | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright ©2013, Just Adventure LLC. All rights reserved in the United States and throughout the world.
All other products and copyrights mentioned on
Just Adventure LLC are the property of their respective companies, and Just Adventure LLC makes no claim thereto.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
