Is your opinion something like this?Science can tell us the probabilities of things
Risk-taking is a personal choice
Banning the personal use of things for being dangerous is immoral
Besides, many human risks are unassessable because of humans not being automatons
Science therefore has no bearing on banning drugs etc.
...if so I like it.
(,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 11:56,
archived)
Risk-taking is a personal choice
Banning the personal use of things for being dangerous is immoral
Besides, many human risks are unassessable because of humans not being automatons
Science therefore has no bearing on banning drugs etc.
...if so I like it.
Of course it could be more like this:Some risks are more insiduous than others
Comparing overt risks with hidden risks is invalid
People tend to overlook these risks due to being dimwitted
It is the duty of government to protect us from these risks, like a stern but kindly father
It's not the business of scientists to forcibly deny us things we like and treat us like retards.
In which case that would suck.
(,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:04,
archived)
Comparing overt risks with hidden risks is invalid
People tend to overlook these risks due to being dimwitted
It is the duty of government to protect us from these risks, like a stern but kindly father
It's not the business of scientists to forcibly deny us things we like and treat us like retards.
In which case that would suck.
Or maybe evenit's that every subsequent government will have to obey the advisory council on the misuse of drugs to the letter, after this incident, and Nutt wants to make it completely independent of government, which means that it would tell us exactly what to do and we couldn't get rid of it by voting.
(,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:14,
archived)
I would have liked to be first to reply to you but you beat me to it. ;>)Well it's good to see a request for clarification of my opinion. It beats telling me what I think every time. I agree with all of your above post except for the last line. I think science should have a bearing on drug legislation as I believe laws should not be made against damaging oneself but should be made against damaging others.
There is evidence that much violent crime, including murder, is carried out under the influence of drugs including cannabis. This also applies to alcohol. Maybe a long jail sentence, if we had any places left, would be a deterrent but banning or legalising drugs taking misses the point. It's the associated crimes that need to be addressed and from which we need protection. Killing yourself by "ignorance" when there is so much information available should be your own risk.
Even Dr Nutt says of his children, "I've always told them about the dangers of drugs."
(There is evidence that much violent crime, including murder, is carried out under the influence of drugs including cannabis. This also applies to alcohol. Maybe a long jail sentence, if we had any places left, would be a deterrent but banning or legalising drugs taking misses the point. It's the associated crimes that need to be addressed and from which we need protection. Killing yourself by "ignorance" when there is so much information available should be your own risk.
Even Dr Nutt says of his children, "I've always told them about the dangers of drugs."
edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:26,
archived)
Not sure what laws (or repeals) that stance leads to.More laws against doing things, like driving, while drunk or stoned?
I think I'm generally against punishing people for things they appear to risk doing, but reading* "Moral Luck" by Thomas Nagel recently has confused me somewhat. If you can be clearly shown to have increased your likelihood of committing manslaughter to 0.4%, it's hard to say why you shouldn't be punished for having committed 0.4% of a manslaughter. I think the point is probably that you can't ever be clearly shown to have done that, and such statistical assessments overlook individual differences, and the whole centrally managed system is anti-rational (preventing people from being independent agents in creating ideas); but then that could be said about all laws. Heh.
*Reading half of. Must find out how it ends at some point, might make me less confused.
(,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 12:48,
archived)
I think I'm generally against punishing people for things they appear to risk doing, but reading* "Moral Luck" by Thomas Nagel recently has confused me somewhat. If you can be clearly shown to have increased your likelihood of committing manslaughter to 0.4%, it's hard to say why you shouldn't be punished for having committed 0.4% of a manslaughter. I think the point is probably that you can't ever be clearly shown to have done that, and such statistical assessments overlook individual differences, and the whole centrally managed system is anti-rational (preventing people from being independent agents in creating ideas); but then that could be said about all laws. Heh.
*Reading half of. Must find out how it ends at some point, might make me less confused.
It's a quagmire of a subject, I knowand I wouldn't pretend to know even half of the answers.
Statistics I agree, should be brought into context. I don't believe that likelihood percentages should be taken into account if say, a person prone to bouts of anger knowingly takes a substance that reduces his inhibitions then commits a violent crime. Similarly if a driver drinks knowing his faculties will be impaired he is deliberately increasing the odds of harming others.
In general terms I believe our laws, enforced by the police, the judiciary and the prison system should protect us from anyone who would deliberately harm us. Unfortunately this ethic seems to have partially collapsed and we are far more likely to be jailed for trying to preserve our legal rights by protecting ourselves. Or maybe for accidentally harming, such as a doctor who makes a mistake.
(Statistics I agree, should be brought into context. I don't believe that likelihood percentages should be taken into account if say, a person prone to bouts of anger knowingly takes a substance that reduces his inhibitions then commits a violent crime. Similarly if a driver drinks knowing his faculties will be impaired he is deliberately increasing the odds of harming others.
In general terms I believe our laws, enforced by the police, the judiciary and the prison system should protect us from anyone who would deliberately harm us. Unfortunately this ethic seems to have partially collapsed and we are far more likely to be jailed for trying to preserve our legal rights by protecting ourselves. Or maybe for accidentally harming, such as a doctor who makes a mistake.
edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Mon 2 Nov 2009, 13:12,
archived)