Author Topic: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage  (Read 31006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jagon

  • Battlezone Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Pochemu ludi pischut pa Ruskimu?
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #45 on: June 16, 2008, 03:59:37 pm »
if people are stupid enough to destroy their lives, i say let them

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #46 on: June 16, 2008, 04:01:28 pm »
In addition to Werechicken's very good points, shouldn't we criminalise cigarettes by that logic, since second hand smoke affects me?

Sorry, your black-and-white arguments hold no water. Real public policy relies on judgement calls in grey areas, and even the very dubious claim that we should let people kill themselves if it only affects them has no place in the real world.

Offline Andrew Ryan

  • Simon Belmont
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • A man has a choice, I chose the impossible!
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #47 on: June 16, 2008, 04:07:38 pm »
if people are stupid enough to destroy their lives, i say let them

Theirs a problem with that logic Jagon. Drugs don't only destroy the users lives but also the lives of those around him. My godfather himself was once a heavy user of meth and coke until he was sent to prison for it and got clean. When he was using drugs however he made everyone else around him misreable and irratable. I must say it isn't all laughs and cheers when a 5ft 7 hit up whiteman that looks like brains have fallen out comes strolling into your living room wearing nothing but underwear and a crack pipe in his hand.
"Don't worry 'bout me. I wouldn't worry about me. Don't you worry about me. Don't you worry 'bout me!" - Talking Heads, Don't Worry About the Government

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #48 on: June 16, 2008, 04:12:33 pm »
Jagon, I like you too

Some incredibly dumb arguing here. Mainly from the people who believe legalization is the way forward - It's not. Also the freedoms of a person can go to hell for all I care if it means allowing companies to try and market heroin to the public.

So... Your morality trumps people's rights?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we all know what's been said here...

Drug addiction causes an increase in crime, puts a drain on the health service and destroys lives (not just the addicts). The reason many drugs are made illegal is because of the detrimental affect they have on society as a whole. Additionally a drug such as this could also be potentially used as a date rape drug, another reason some substances are made illegal or placed under strict controls.

Yeah... But many date rape drugs can be made from things easily bought at your local hardware store. Make date-rape illegal, don't ban the chemical used in it. Otherwise, we would have to ban paint because it is a component in some forms of GHB.

This would be true even if it were legalized, just look at alcohol. The only reason why alcohol is legal is because it's so firmly embedded in our culture. If alcohol had been discovered a few years ago it would be illegal.

Which, naturally, would just lead to more violent crime like in Prohibition eras.

While there are some arguments for making drugs legal (would result in fewer accidental overdoses and might be able to gain some revenue from it) it is immediately countered by the fact that the number of addicts would soar, obviously these companies would be selling these drugs to the general public and therefore would be marketing it at them.

Maybe, maybe not. It's people's choice, though. If people are over 19 and want to smoke, we let them because it's their lungs and their call what they put in them.

Making the possession of a dug illegal severely limits the number of people who can come into contact with the drug and ensures that the number of addicts remains low, relatively speaking.

Again, maybe, maybe not. There are no real numbers to back that up as addicts are underground.

the cartels would probably just create front organizations to sell marijuana to the united states legitimately and use the revenue they gain to power their more illegal enterprises

Which could result in their company being seized and sold to people who abide by the law. Simple fact is, once you make millions legitimately, you don't NEED to make more illegally.

When it begins to affect you short term (1-6 days) physical and mental health aswell as your ability to be a good citizen (by good citizen, I mean not interfering with other citizens in a negative way). I would classify Heroine and meth under affecting your short term physical and mental health.


Edit: Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Damn, this is a fast moving thread!

Which is why you charge people who "affect" other citizens with crimes. That's why we have things like Drunk and Disorderly Conduct being a crime.

And, yes, yes it is.


Theirs a problem with that logic Jagon. Drugs don't only destroy the users lives but also the lives of those around him. My godfather himself was once a heavy user of meth and coke until he was sent to prison for it and got clean. When he was using drugs however he made everyone else around him misreable and irratable. I must say it isn't all laughs and cheers when a 5ft 7 hit up whiteman that looks like brains have fallen out comes strolling into your living room wearing nothing but underwear and a crack pipe in his hand.

So why not kick him out of the house? If you didn't like him having the stuff, kick him out. Fact is, though, if it was his house or the house owner wanted him there, you have no right to stop him.

In addition to Werechicken's very good points, shouldn't we criminalise cigarettes by that logic, since second hand smoke affects me?

Sorry, your black-and-white arguments hold no water. Real public policy relies on judgement calls in grey areas, and even the very dubious claim that we should let people kill themselves if it only affects them has no place in the real world.

Why doesn't it, Daxx? Does your morality override people's right to choose too? If someone wants to sit in a room, jab themselves in the arm, and damage their brain a little and they don't affect you, why stop them? And if they assault you or anyone, they've broken the law and should go to jail. You arrest people for that, not for affecting themselves.

Why shouldn't we let them kill themselves? Their life, their choice... Unless you believe you can choose better and your choices should override theirs.

As for cigarettes, I'd agree to a certain degree but it simply requires regulation, not banning. Still, if you do want to follow that logic, shouldn't we ban cars too?
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #49 on: June 16, 2008, 04:15:58 pm »
Exactly, the logic would suggest that. Which is why it's stupid to make black and white statements about that. Which is my entire point. Way to go...

You don't need to moralise to refrain from granting rights. You can do it as part of effective social planning, with the goal of increasing aggregate utility. But of course it's so much easier to characterise anyone opposing you as freedom-hating interfering bastards, isn't it? :P

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2008, 04:23:57 pm »
Exactly, the logic would suggest that. Which is why it's stupid to make black and white statements about that. Which is my entire point. Way to go...

You don't need to moralise to refrain from granting rights. You can do it as part of effective social planning, with the goal of increasing aggregate utility. But of course it's so much easier to characterise anyone opposing you as freedom-hating interfering bastards, isn't it? :P

It's not a granting of rights. Everyone has a right to life and freedom of choice, and with that comes the choice to help or hurt yourself.

Also, please, why should we allow alcohol and cigarettes but not drugs like heroin, marijuana, and so on? Shouldn't we ban all drugs? And force people to eat regulated diets? And exercise regularly?

Sorry, Daxx, but people have to be responsible for their own lives. Society shouldn't be an exercise in trying to be efficient.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #51 on: June 16, 2008, 04:28:03 pm »
It's not a granting of rights. Everyone has a right to life and freedom of choice, and with that comes the choice to help or hurt yourself.

Really? And from whence these rights? Self-evidence just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Also, please, why should we allow alcohol and cigarettes but not drugs like heroin, marijuana, and so on? Shouldn't we ban all drugs? And force people to eat regulated diets? And exercise regularly?

Because reading comprehension seems to fail you, I guess I'll just have to quote myself:

I don't give a crap about the practicalities of alcohol or marijuana legislation, because that's not what I'm addressing at all. Leave off with the goddamn straw men already, it's sickening enough in the other threads. You are suggesting that everything should be legal and free, and I am saying that is a goddamn stupid idea. That is all.

Sorry, Daxx, but people have to be responsible for their own lives. Society shouldn't be an exercise in trying to be efficient.

Ooh, normative statements. Back this one up, please.

Offline Werechicken

  • Starcross Space Cadet
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2008, 04:28:48 pm »
Some incredibly dumb arguing here. Mainly from the people who believe legalization is the way forward - It's not. Also the freedoms of a person can go to hell for all I care if it means allowing companies to try and market heroin to the public.
So... Your morality trumps people's rights?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we all know what's been said here...
Yes, you're a manipulative argumentative troll who clearly ignores the point. (Too far? - maybe, but crap like that really annoys me)
Does anyone want heroin, cocaine or L.S.D. marketed to the public, especially to vulnerable groups? Because that's what would happen.

Drug addiction causes an increase in crime, puts a drain on the health service and destroys lives (not just the addicts). The reason many drugs are made illegal is because of the detrimental affect they have on society as a whole. Additionally a drug such as this could also be potentially used as a date rape drug, another reason some substances are made illegal or placed under strict controls.
Yeah... But many date rape drugs can be made from things easily bought at your local hardware store. Make date-rape illegal, don't ban the chemical used in it. Otherwise, we would have to ban paint because it is a component in some forms of GHB.
I can make mescaline from easily acquired chemicals, that does not make a case for making possession of it legal, which is the logic you're using.

This would be true even if it were legalized, just look at alcohol. The only reason why alcohol is legal is because it's so firmly embedded in our culture. If alcohol had been discovered a few years ago it would be illegal.
Which, naturally, would just lead to more violent crime like in Prohibition eras.
Prohibition failed because I said, if you'd bothered to remember, that alcohol was too firmly embedded in our culture to even try and remove it. There was hardly anyone who didn't drink alcohol, with illegal drugs this is not the case and should obviously remain so.

While there are some arguments for making drugs legal (would result in fewer accidental overdoses and might be able to gain some revenue from it) it is immediately countered by the fact that the number of addicts would soar, obviously these companies would be selling these drugs to the general public and therefore would be marketing it at them.
Maybe, maybe not. It's people's choice, though. If people are over 19 and want to smoke, we let them because it's their lungs and their call what they put in them.
And when they turn to crime to feed their habit and the hospitals are inundated with addicts suffering from the countless side-effects of these drugs what then?

Making the possession of a dug illegal severely limits the number of people who can come into contact with the drug and ensures that the number of addicts remains low, relatively speaking.
Again, maybe, maybe not. There are no real numbers to back that up as addicts are underground.
I think I'll trust official figures over some random musings. The fact is that in most developed countries drug addiction is blessedly low. The fact it is much higher within the poorer areas of society should say something about how the kind of scum who sell this stuff prey on those who are vulnerable. Do we really want to let them get away with it?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2008, 04:34:03 pm by Werechicken »
What have you got against intellectual midgets? They're quite smart little guys as far as i can tell.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #53 on: June 16, 2008, 05:00:36 pm »
Really? And from whence these rights? Self-evidence just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

From the easiest foundation of any legal system: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

-Quote-

Problem is, the two are linked. You can't address one drug without addressing them all. You can't ban one for being a brain damaging, mind altering, endangering substance and not ban another simply because it's more culturally acceptable. (Edit: I know that wasn't your argument but still...)

Ooh, normative statements. Back this one up, please.

.... Back it up with what? That humans should allowed to pursue their happiness? There's not exactly a statistical reason that humans should be allowed to control their own life.

Yes, you're a manipulative argumentative troll who clearly ignores the point. (Too far? - maybe, but crap like that really annoys me)
Does anyone want heroin, cocaine or L.S.D. marketed to the public, especially to vulnerable groups? Because that's what would happen.

"I don't like it so it can't be done! Lots of people agree with me!" That's what your argument sounds like to me... Fact is, we have people marketing high sugar drinks that can lead to childhood obesity and diabetes and some people don't like that. Should we ban Coke (The drink), Pepsi, and Sprite?

I can make mescaline from easily acquired chemicals, that does not make a case for making possession of it legal, which is the logic you're using.

The problem is, all drugs can be used to addict people, to harm people... Why not ban sleeping pills that can have similar effects?

Prohibition failed because I said, if you'd bothered to remember, that alcohol was too firmly embedded in our culture to even try and remove it. There was hardly anyone who didn't drink alcohol, with illegal drugs this is not the case and should obviously remain so.

So cultural acceptance makes it okay? But there's a huge marijuana culture growing now, should we allow it? Culture shouldn't override morality...

And when they turn to crime to feed their habit and the hospitals are inundated with addicts suffering from the countless side-effects of these drugs what then?

They pay for their hospitalization, get arrested for their crimes... I'd have thought that was obvious.

I think I'll trust official figures over some random musings. The fact is that in most developed countries drug addiction is blessedly low. The fact it is much higher within the poorer areas of society should say something about how the kind of scum who sell this stuff prey on those who are vulnerable. Do we really want to let them get away with it?

Is it? Please, find me statistics. As for them getting away with it, you said alcohol is okay to not ban simply because you can't stop it. Well, if you know they'll predate on the poor, your logic would seem to indicate that you should just let them. I disagree but your logic seems to say so. I think people should make it cleaner, safer, and less dangerous, and you can't do that with it being a black market.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2008, 05:03:48 pm by Axelgear »
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline HanianKnight

  • Choplifter Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1607
  • He's Probably a Good Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #54 on: June 16, 2008, 08:56:51 pm »
I don't really think it should be banned, its effects seem pretty short-term. 5-10 minutes sounds good, and(from what I got from the wikipedia page) there doesn't seem to be any major long-term effects. If you have a sober "sitter" then I don't think it would coause much trouble.
By the time you finish reading this signature, I've gotten into your house, stolen your t.v., and re-decorated the place so that it fits with your hipster lifestyle.

Offline Brandonazz

  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8905
  • Everything ends.
    • View Profile
    • My Internet Treasure Trove
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #55 on: June 16, 2008, 09:58:07 pm »
Sorry, your black-and-white arguments hold no water. Real public policy relies on judgement calls in grey areas, and even the very dubious claim that we should let people kill themselves if it only affects them has no place in the real world.
Exactly, the logic would suggest that. Which is why it's stupid to make black and white statements about that. Which is my entire point. Way to go...
Problem is, the two are linked. You can't address one drug without addressing them all. You can't ban one for being a brain damaging, mind altering, endangering substance and not ban another simply because it's more culturally acceptable.

QED. Stop it with the black and white logic Axel.

Quote
(Edit: I know that wasn't your argument but still...)

I can't find a quote right now, but suffice it to say that it would be one of the many pointing out how you ignore what the other person actually says. Stop playing tennis and start debating.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2008, 09:59:41 pm by Brandonazz »

Offline Cobra

  • Moderator
  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8941
  • People want ducks.
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #56 on: June 16, 2008, 10:13:36 pm »
Have i got it right in stating Axel seems to take any concept to it's logical exteme. If so then really all his ideas are doomed to fail Freedom might be good but you can actually have too much of a good thing.

Offline Inkling

  • S.T.U.N. Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8053
  • Not a Squid.
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #57 on: June 16, 2008, 10:30:09 pm »
Oh, this thread amuses me.  I'm really just commenting so this will show up under the new replies section.  I'm too tired to contribute much, but Axel and others, you need to go look at what drugs like meth and heroin actually do to people and those around them.  You also need to drop the black and white, all or nothing mentality, but that has been said by many others more eloquently than I can muster at this hour.
Probably not a Goat, either.


Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
    • View Profile
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #58 on: June 17, 2008, 01:51:43 am »
Really? And from whence these rights? Self-evidence just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

From the easiest foundation of any legal system: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Please explain to me how in any way that holds water from a logical perspective. How does "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a philosophical tenet logically necessarily and sufficiently lead to the rights to life and freedom of choice? You either have no understanding of what I'm asking you to justify, or you can't do it.

-Quote-

Problem is, the two are linked. You can't address one drug without addressing them all. You can't ban one for being a brain damaging, mind altering, endangering substance and not ban another simply because it's more culturally acceptable. (Edit: I know that wasn't your argument but still...)

I'm going to keep quoting this until you at some point decide to actually read it.

I don't give a crap about the practicalities of alcohol or marijuana legislation, because that's not what I'm addressing at all. Leave off with the goddamn straw men already, it's sickening enough in the other threads. You are suggesting that everything should be legal and free, and I am saying that is a goddamn stupid idea. That is all.

Ooh, normative statements. Back this one up, please.

.... Back it up with what? That humans should allowed to pursue their happiness? There's not exactly a statistical reason that humans should be allowed to control their own life.

Back up your normative statement that welfare maximisation shouldn't be a goal in social planning.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Florida Senate Votes to Criminalize the Diviner's Sage
« Reply #59 on: June 17, 2008, 03:43:57 am »
Oh, this thread amuses me.  I'm really just commenting so this will show up under the new replies section.  I'm too tired to contribute much, but Axel and others, you need to go look at what drugs like meth and heroin actually do to people and those around them.  You also need to drop the black and white, all or nothing mentality, but that has been said by many others more eloquently than I can muster at this hour.

See, the thing is, I KNOW what they do. I've seen the pictures, watched the videos, and seen lives ruined by drugs. I've also seen lives ruined because they've been driven underground. It's a horrible thing. I've seen people suffer from alcohol abuse and so on.

It was still their choice to take the drug in the first place.

The logic is black and white here because it involves the restriction of personal freedoms due to societal beliefs, socialist goals, or some similar ideals. Once you do this, you have entered the dark state where you can change the law "for people's own good" and that is a dark path to walk.

What's to stop people from banning fatty foods? (And some have tried and succeeded to various degrees in places) There are people who want to ban cupcakes from school birthday parties. Well, their goal might be well and good but all it is going to do is take away one happy memory from these children's childhood and take away their parent's choice of what to feed them.

You might be willing to give up your choices and freedoms to other people, but I'm not. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't even touch coffee. These are my choices. If people want to ruin their lives with other drugs, that's their choice. At the very least stop things like meth addicts cooking highly toxic stews in someone's basement and poisoning themselves further.

Please explain to me how in any way that holds water from a logical perspective. How does "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a philosophical tenet logically necessarily and sufficiently lead to the rights to life and freedom of choice? You either have no understanding of what I'm asking you to justify, or you can't do it.

Very simply. You do not try and kill me, I won't try and kill you. Same with rape, murder, arson, theft, etc. Modern law is based on protecting people from each other. It's only too recently that things like protecting people from the real world or protecting people from themselves have come into play (I.E. Seat belt laws).

I'm going to keep quoting this until you at some point decide to actually read it.

And I'm going to keep saying what I've said before, Daxx. You might not care, but you have to. You can't address the restriction of one substance without addressing others of the same kind. I'd love to see you say something about why we can ban one and not the other. Or would you like to ignore my point?

Back up your normative statement that welfare maximisation shouldn't be a goal in social planning.

Well, aside from the term being too broad, the simple answer is that while it should be a consideration, you shouldn't baby people. I'm all for the government sprucing up a public park, make people happy that way. Treating people like babies and saying "We don't trust you to make the right decisions" is pathetic. They're grown adults. If they choose to ruin their lives, then they can. Make outreach programs, teach kids the dangers of drugs, they're not stupid. It doesn't mean you treat them like they shouldn't have control over THEIR life.

QED. Stop it with the black and white logic Axel.

What exactly has been demonstrated, Brandon? The fact is, you have to justify what your point is. If we wish to address the issue of car emissions and say "We will only be applying these measures to Fords" and then not stating any reason for it, you can imagine people starting to question it.

I can't find a quote right now, but suffice it to say that it would be one of the many pointing out how you ignore what the other person actually says. Stop playing tennis and start debating.

.... What have I ignored? It's Daxx who is ignoring things, I have asked him why he can suggest a ban on one thing and then so blatantly ignore others, especially things like alcohol, which more people kill under the influence of than any other drug.

A blog that, currently, has some interesting statistics on drunk driving

Why is it okay to ban these things and not alcohol? When Daxx says that it is okay to ban alcohol, I'll drop this point.

Have i got it right in stating Axel seems to take any concept to it's logical exteme. If so then really all his ideas are doomed to fail Freedom might be good but you can actually have too much of a good thing.

It's not an extreme to think people shouldn't be treated like children. Being gay used to be illegal because people believed it was a corrupting, addicting thing and totally immoral, but it was made legal because it was wrong to take away that choice from people and wrong to send them to jail for committing an act that ultimately harmed no-one but those who gave consent to doing so.

It's wrong to lock people away or take away their choices simply because they might hurt themselves doing so. Otherwise, there is no end to the things we could ban. It's this sort of high-and-mighty moralizing "I know better than you" attitude that led to Prohibition, the illegality of prostitution, and the illegality of homosexuality in the first place. We all know the kind of suffering that has come from each of these things....
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.