Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: Vaccination against drugs  (Read 5087 times)

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2011, 11:44:16 pm »

Take one one hundredth of Canada.

It would be larger then most countries anyway, and its not like were using all that land.

Can we get Toronto? I've always wanted to go there!!

Shade-o

  • Bay Watcher
  • It's my greatest creation yet!
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2011, 12:01:53 am »

There's plenty of incentive for a government to enforce or support it without being a comically evil tyranny. Think of all the money that would be saved if hospitals had so many fewer patients, if there were so many fewer crimes for police, courts and prisons, if criminal and terrorist organisations were unable to get funding, and if so many people were able to contribute thanks to still being alive or healthy.

From a purely economical standpoint it's awesome.
Logged
Apparently having a redundant creature entry causes the game to say, "Oh, look, it's crazy world now. Nothing makes sense! Alligators live in houses!"

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2011, 12:05:06 am »

From a rights standpoint, it's a nightmare. That is more important to me than the economy. If we legalized these drugs instead and allowed people to make their own choices, we would get the same crime reduction while preserving people's right to choose for themselves, even if we don't get the medical benefit of having a society where people cannot use chemicals deemed "bad" by a nanny state.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 12:08:31 am by MetalSlimeHunt »
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Shade-o

  • Bay Watcher
  • It's my greatest creation yet!
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2011, 12:08:30 am »

People can choose for themselves right now.
Logged
Apparently having a redundant creature entry causes the game to say, "Oh, look, it's crazy world now. Nothing makes sense! Alligators live in houses!"

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2011, 12:10:14 am »

And ending this pointless War on Drugs is the last step in making them able to have that choice fully, rather than with the pressure of the law upon them while they make their choices on the matter. Not to mention solving our prison overpopulation.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Shade-o

  • Bay Watcher
  • It's my greatest creation yet!
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2011, 12:51:17 am »

While legalising all manner of drugs would cause a decrease in in crime and users who do it for the rebellious factor, it is not so simple. Governments have a duty to protect the population to which it owes its existence, which is why there are so many services dedicated to serving the foolish, the ignorant and the unlucky.

On one end is hospital services. They treat the injured. They don't say, "You didn't wear safety gear while repairing your roof? Hope you enjoy drinking through a straw for the rest of your short, pain-filled life!". No, they expend time and money on surgery and care, even if the person 'deserved it' or 'made their choice' to risk their life through being an idiot. That's a safety-net, though. Unless the intention is suicide, then there's no loss of freedom aside from not being allowed to walk on your broken leg or regularly taking medication to stop your heart from exploding.

On the other end are things like crime-fighting. Unless you are acting under extreme duress or have a mental condition that makes you unable to judge your actions or their consequences, you choose to cause suffering to other people. Freedom to kill or maim whoever you like? Or freedom to live without the fear of living in Gotham City? Is the right to liberty greater than the right to life? Happiness can be obtained from both causing harm and not being harmed.

Where do drugs fit in? All of them are different. Different beneficial effects, different negative effects, different levels of addictiveness. Usage could range from a one-off try that gives nothing but bliss, or a lifetime of brief highs and endless lows that causes suffering to everyone involved. Aside from medical usage where it directly saves lives or relieves suffering, the general population having unregulated access to drugs can get nothing but short-lived happiness, countered by such things as overdoses, drunk driving, cancers of all kinds, and inexplicable rages. Willingly bringing that suffering upon yourself or others won't stop it from occurring, no matter how free-spirited you are.

It is a complicated issue. Taking your favourite flavour is not the same as committing robbery or assault. But it is Russian Roulette with a landmine. Justifying potentially destructive effects for you and others on the basis of 'Because I want to" is not the sort of thing that any government that cares about the welfare of its citizens should consider.
Logged
Apparently having a redundant creature entry causes the game to say, "Oh, look, it's crazy world now. Nothing makes sense! Alligators live in houses!"

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2011, 12:59:30 am »

On one end is hospital services. They treat the injured. They don't say, "You didn't wear safety gear while repairing your roof? Hope you enjoy drinking through a straw for the rest of your short, pain-filled life!". No, they expend time and money on surgery and care, even if the person 'deserved it' or 'made their choice' to risk their life through being an idiot. That's a safety-net, though. Unless the intention is suicide, then there's no loss of freedom aside from not being allowed to walk on your broken leg or regularly taking medication to stop your heart from exploding.
What's your point? I at no point suggested that hospitals not take care of the injured. That is their purpose.

Quote
Justifying potentially destructive effects for you and others on the basis of 'Because I want to" is not the sort of thing that any government that cares about the welfare of its citizens should consider.
I certainly don't want to. The use of recreational drugs is, in my opinion, very foolish. But that's my opinion. I choose to not allow any potential positives or negatives from recreational drugs into my life. Others may have a different opinion, but it has just as much right to exist as mine does. Governments should care about the wellfare of their citizens, but not to the point where they take away their citizen's right to make their own choices in the name of security.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Shade-o

  • Bay Watcher
  • It's my greatest creation yet!
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2011, 01:13:20 am »

Just like...

OMINOUS CHORD

Preventing murder?
Logged
Apparently having a redundant creature entry causes the game to say, "Oh, look, it's crazy world now. Nothing makes sense! Alligators live in houses!"

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #53 on: January 07, 2011, 02:06:34 am »

Take one one hundredth of Canada.

It would be larger then most countries anyway, and its not like were using all that land.

Can we get Toronto? I've always wanted to go there!!
i went there during the Gay Conventions. Best moment of my life is grown men around me in the elevator screaming "Lets all go to the pool!" i lol'd, gay people are some very happy people.

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #54 on: January 07, 2011, 07:51:38 am »

I am against legislating morality, so I'm against this on principle, slippery slope or no.  This step, on its own, is already too far.
Now that doesn't make much sense. All law/legislation is based on morals.

As for the topic. I wouldn't want this forced on anyone without reason,  but I it's not exactly that easy. Drugs take a heavy toll on society and induvidual people both. For example, much crime that that just wouldn't happen if drugs or alcohol wasn't involved. Other people have to pay the price for that. 'Vaccinating' judged criminals with proved drug problems would be well within reason in my opinion.

The day that we start castrating rapists, I'm all for that.

I don't know if it would be a good or a bad thing in the end.
What I am arguing above is this: If a man (or woman) repeatedly commits crimes while drunk or on drugs, and continues to do this even after he's been judged to anger management/rehab/whatever-therapy, he gets vaccinated. As much of this kind of crime (and crime in general) has a direct link to drugs, this would be a pre-emptive strike against future crimes as well as a severe punishment for his past crimes.

You know, I doubt that this will actually work like you all seem to think it will. Sure, the mice produce the antibodies, but for how long? Furthermore, we don't know if it'll work on humans. It may be that the body ceases to produce these antibodies after a short period of time, making it useless to taking personal choice out of an individual's life. It might not work on other drugs either, just cocaine.

Then again, the worst case is as such: It works on humans, for our entire lifespan, and on all illegal drugs. A pathetic moralistic Congress plays on people's fears and makes it mandatory for infants. The idea that people must be able to make their own choices in this regard takes a severe setback. I doubt it'll play out like that in reality, but there you go.

Best case, it doesn't work in humans at all.
I simply argue about the concept, not about this particular "treatment" or method, because as you say, we know very little about it.
Furthermore, arguing from the worst case thinkable is hardly constructive. It is very similar to what (for example) Christian moralists do when they argue that video games (or whatever is their current hang-up) makes kid violent and/or psychopaths.

No. People have to learn to be responsable for themselves. Letting the state choose for them is just furthering the authoritarian dogma that has kept humanity's progress stunted for so long. If an individual chooses to use addictive drugs, that is their choice, and they alone carry the positives and negitives.
Quote
People must learn to make their own choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they never do, and all of their choices are made for them, then they are just...well...sheep. Alive only to produce for the state through some avenue of work, and then die.
There is one common and easily identifiable trend throughout humanity; people do not take responsibility, and they do not learn from their actions. That is one of the reason we have laws and legal systems to begin with, to defend people from the consequences of irresponsible people's actions, or at least getting restitution (or whatever it's called, my English fails me) and acknowledgement in retrospect.
Besides, having "vaccination" as a form of legal punishment would be a consequence of actions.


And at your posts in general:
I'm not sure whether you're arguing against your "worst case scenario" device or not, but I'm pretty sure no one else is arguing for that kind of pre-habilitation (yes, I know no such word exist). At least, I'm not. If you are, well, as I said above - that's neither a very constructive nor relevant stance. It's just a version of the slippery slope fallacy, except you skip right to the end. A dystopia fallacy, if such a thing exist. Similar stances could be taken against prison, electronic tagging,  or any number of other issues. And yes, it can happen, and that is something we should be vary about, but that is no reason to never under any circumstances even touch said issue, which is what you come off as arguing (to me) here.


Quote
All law/legislation is based on morals
Now this is just silly. A ton of law and legislation has nothing to do with morality.
Give me some example of law not based on morality, then.
Logged
Love, scriver~

Heron TSG

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Seal Goddess
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2011, 08:51:14 am »

Quote
All law/legislation is based on morals
Now this is just silly. A ton of law and legislation has nothing to do with morality.
Give me some example of law not based on morality, then.
It's impossible in many states for gays to marry. Arguably, Marijuana isn't immoral and is still illegal to smoke in many places. You can't park on the left side of Main Street in my town when it's been raining for more than a day.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 08:53:38 am by Barbarossa the Seal God »
Logged

Est Sularus Oth Mithas
The Artist Formerly Known as Barbarossa TSG

ed boy

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2011, 09:07:20 am »

Quote
All law/legislation is based on morals
Now this is just silly. A ton of law and legislation has nothing to do with morality.
Give me some example of law not based on morality, then.
It's impossible in many states for gays to marry. Arguably, Marijuana isn't immoral and is still illegal to smoke in many places. You can't park on the left side of Main Street in my town when it's been raining for more than a day.
Lots of people are opposed to gay marriage because they consider it immoral.
The morality of marijuana is debateable - there are plenty of people who consider its use immoral.
As for the parking issue, that law was put in place for a reason. If parking on the left side of the street after rain was perfectly fine, nobody would bother banning it. Therefore, it must have been causing a problem or a potential problem. Just because I personally cannot think of a reason against it does not mean that there is no reason against it.
Logged

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2011, 09:32:44 am »

It's impossible in many states for gays to marry.
This one should be obvious. Old religious and cultural morality deems homosexuality immoral. I don't agree, and since you bring it up I assume you don't either, but many people still do.

Quote
Arguably, Marijuana isn't immoral and is still illegal to smoke in many places.
Many people consider Marijuana to be to be either dangerous or immoral. Dangerous, not only to the person who does it, but to the the surrounding individuals as well, as they argue it lowers perception and and looses inhibitions, making people more likely to do other criminal acts than they would otherwise. It may always not be true, but the anti-Marijuana machine has been working for a long time now, and many people are not clear on what effects Marijuana actually has, and are led to assume the worst. Many people I've argued about legalisation with, for example, thinks Marijuana is a direct cause of psychosis. Thus, it is moral for them to want it banned, similarly to how they want heavier drugs banned because of the danger to society they think they are.

Quote
You can't park on the left side of Main Street in my town when it's been raining for more than a day.
I have absolutely no way of knowing why they would make this law, I can't even know whether it is a lie or not unless you prove to me that it is true. Still, though the law definitely seems silly out of context, I doubt they would legislate such a thing without reason, it might even be a "leftover" law that had a purpose once, but does no more.
Still, I could make all kinds of guesses concerning why such a law would be justified or even needed, most including plumbing and or access to sewers/related stuff. They basically come down to it being immoral to complicate the work of public/state institutions who might need access (because they are needed for the benefit of the majority of citizens) and thus a fine (or whatever) is ordained for such behaviour. Just like with other parking laws.
It is a bit useless for me to guess about without knowing any of the circumstances, however, so I really shouldn't try to elaborate any further on it. Furthermore, your example is not much more than an anecdote, and just because I cannot prove the morals behind it does not make it not based on morality. It is similar to situation where X claims religious miracles healing cancer or any other disease is just humbug and fake, and Y answers that his uncle was cured by laying on of hands. X cannot with certainty (beyond belief) say it wasn't so, but that does not make Y right.

Lastly, though, I should say that it was wrong of me to say that "all" laws are based on morality. Of course there's going to be particular examples that wasn't, such is always the case with definitive statements. I take that back. I do however insist that most laws were. Restrictions of our actions are (in most cases ;)) there because other people don't find those actions proper or fair, not because the government ungroundedly decided that you can't do that "just because".
It may not be your morals, but everyone does not go by the same beliefs.

Prepostual edit: Ninja'd by eddieboy. Though he says the same in a much less long-winded way, I'm posting it anyway.
Logged
Love, scriver~

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2011, 10:00:02 am »

Governments have a duty to protect the population
From each other, not from themselves. It's a huuuuge difference.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

ed boy

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccination against drugs
« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2011, 10:25:01 am »

Governments have a duty to protect the population
From each other, not from themselves.
I would disagree.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7