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)