Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

Heart attack is the number 1 killer in the first world, so that chain of reasoning applies far more to fast food than it does to drugs. So would you or would you not support banning pizza, burgers and soda? Or do you think that the benefit of taste outweighs the cost of dropping dead at 40?

The freedom to hurt yourself is an essential part of being free. I value my freedom far higher than I value my health, financial prosperity or anything else for that matter, so in my book if you're denying me things "for my own good" you're doing me more harm than good.

Also, there's the issue of ethicalness of performing medical procedures without the patient's consent, which is a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath. IMO the only time when denying the patient right to reject treatment is justifiable is when you're dealing with a highly contagious disease.

[ed boy]

Very good post, Graebeard, but I'm going to have to pick a bone with part of it.

Second, limit your use of universal statements about drugs to things that are truly universal.  For example, we can probably all agree that individuals should not normally have to take drugs involuntarily, whether they're behavior-altering drugs or antibiotics.

It's not really a universal statement if you have to specify "not normally". Technically, it is correct, that in all "normal" situations you are stating that people should not be forced to take drugs involuntarily, so it is universal to all drugs in those situations, but "normal" is an extremely vague term, and I'm pretty confident that with almost any attempt you make to define what is normal and what is not, there will be plenty of disagreement on what categories different situations should fall under.

Heart attack is the number 1 killer in the first world, so that chain of reasoning applies far more to fast food than it does to drugs. So would you or would you not support banning pizza, burgers and soda? Or do you think that the benefit of taste outweighs the cost of dropping dead at 40?

The chain of reasong deduces that in matters where the negative consequences of taking something outweigh the benefit, then it should be banned. In my opinion, that is not the case with fast food.

Also, there's the issue of ethicalness of performing medical procedures without the patient's consent, which is a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath. IMO the only time when denying the patient right to reject treatment is justifiable is when you're dealing with a highly contagious disease.

What about when giving children vaccinations? I sure as hell can't imagine any child that wants to get an injection.

[Dwarf]

Very good post, Graebeard, but I'm going to have to pick a bone with part of it.

Second, limit your use of universal statements about drugs to things that are truly universal.  For example, we can probably all agree that individuals should not normally have to take drugs involuntarily, whether they're behavior-altering drugs or antibiotics.

It's not really a universal statement if you have to specify "not normally". Technically, it is correct, that in all "normal" situations you are stating that people should not be forced to take drugs involuntarily, so it is universal to all drugs in those situations, but "normal" is an extremely vague term, and I'm pretty confident that with almost any attempt you make to define what is normal and what is not, there will be plenty of disagreement on what categories different situations should fall under.

Heart attack is the number 1 killer in the first world, so that chain of reasoning applies far more to fast food than it does to drugs. So would you or would you not support banning pizza, burgers and soda? Or do you think that the benefit of taste outweighs the cost of dropping dead at 40?

The chain of reasong deduces that in matters where the negative consequences of taking something outweigh the benefit, then it should be banned. In my opinion, that is not the case with fast food.

Also, there's the issue of ethicalness of performing medical procedures without the patient's consent, which is a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath. IMO the only time when denying the patient right to reject treatment is justifiable is when you're dealing with a highly contagious disease.

What about when giving children vaccinations? I sure as hell can't imagine any child that wants to get an injection.

tl;dr nanny state must  ban that which is not good for us

[DJ]

The chain of reasong deduces that in matters where the negative consequences of taking something outweigh the benefit, then it should be banned. In my opinion, that is not the case with fast food.

And in my opinion it is the case. I don't see why your opinion is inherently more correct than mine.

What about when giving children vaccinations? I sure as hell can't imagine any child that wants to get an injection.

Parents can make decisions for their children. A parent should still have right to refuse any kind of vaccination for his child, provided it's not administered as a measure to prevent a pandemic.

[ed boy]

The chain of reasong deduces that in matters where the negative consequences of taking something outweigh the benefit, then it should be banned. In my opinion, that is not the case with fast food.

And in my opinion it is the case. I don't see why your opinion is inherently more correct than mine.

So you are saying that there do not exist any drugs where the negative consequences outweight the benefits?

[DJ]

I think you may have some extra negatives there, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. But I'll assume you're saying that consequences outweigh benefits for every single drug, but the same is not the case for fast food. In which case I'll have to ask you to define benefit, because I sure as hell don't see any in eating fast food that isn't gained from taking drugs (nutrition doesn't count, you can get that from healthy food).

[ed boy]

Nope. What I am saying is that there exist some drugs where the negative effects outweigh the benefits in some situations. For these drugs, their use in those situations should be minimized.

However, in practice, analysing every single situation is prohibitively expensive, so for some drugs it tends to be the most efficient when all usage is banned.

As for the benefit, I'm defining it to include both the physical effects (such as providing nourishment in the case of the fast food) and the enjoyment (from eating some tasty fast food)

[DJ]

ALL fast food is bad for you, so I still don't see why you don't support a blanket ban of it as well. It'd also give far more social benefit than drugs ban, because obesity is the heaviest burden (pardon the pun) on the healthcare system. Fast food is also a lot more addictive than a lot of drugs, especially hallucinogenics.

[Graebeard]

Edit: wow, a lot of discussion in the time it took to write this.  I'll post it anyway in the hopes I wasn't preempted.

ed boy, here's my response to your (very clear) argument.

Returning to the issue of government vaccinations against drugs, let me know what precise step(s) in the following chain of thought you disagree with:
-people gain short term enjoyment from taking some drugs

Agreed.  But don't forget the long-term or personal benefits.  Many people take drugs for inspiration, insight, to exercise personal freedom, or to have a religious experience.  We must account for these.

-people gain long term disadvantages from taking those same drugs

Some people face some long-term disadvantages from drug use.  The problem is that there is essentially zero science on the long-term effects of drug use, and the effects differ greatly from drug to drug.  Most of the "facts" I see bandied about are straight-up prohibition-era lies that are still perpetuated, or essentially mindless propaganda.  LSD affects your chromosomes?  Really?  C'mon, guys.

While there are obviously some concrete disadvantages to illegal drug use, many of these harms are more related to the fact that the drug is illegal than that it causes physical or psychological harm.  That means we need to consider an alternative in our cost/benefit analysis: legalization.

-for some drugs, the disadvantages outweigh enjoyment is all or almost all cases

See above.  There may be anecdotal evidence about this, but essentially zero science.  I might personally agree with this regarding one, maybe two drugs.  But that opinion isn't based upon science.  Also cost/benefit of drug analysis of drug use are certain to exclude the value of a drug user's personal development/religious experience/insight/artistic inspiration.  Even if it did, how do we measure or value something like that?[/quote]

-when deciding whether or not to take drugs, some people misjudge the relative value of the short term enjoyment and the long term disadvantages

Absolutely agree.  We also do this in starting and ending personal relationships, when making education decisions, and just about every other thing we do.  Look up hyperbolic discounting.  It's a universal human behavior not limited to drug use, or even humans for that matter.

-therefore, those people take drugs when they should not
-therefore, those people have negative benefit from taking drugs

Sure, but this still isn't different from other bad decisions individuals make.

-the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the government is to maximise the total benefit in society in the long term

Disagree.  First of all, any Republican would disagree with you on dogmatic grounds.  At the other end of the political spectrum you have liberalism and its focus on protecting liberty and human rights.  The position you describe is usually called paternalism, and there is a lot of legitimate and persuasive criticism of paternalistic politics.  Dictators and totalitarian regimes frequently justify their power with paternalistic arguments.

-therefore, if an action results in negative benefit, the government must attempt to reduce the effects of this negative benefit until the point where the costs of reducing it further outweigh the amount it would be reduced by.

You are essentially stating the standard for utilitarian morality, except that you're also saying the government should enforce that morality through the law.  This is only true if utilitarian morality is true, and if it's the government's job to enforce morality through the law.  Most people disagree with both of those propositions.

-people taking these drugs results in negative benefit, so the government must, if the costs of doing so are not outweighed by the long term increase in benefit, do at least one of these three things:
--Increase the enjoyment of the drugs until it reaches the point where the enjoyment outweighs the long term negative effects
--Decrease the negative effects until they are outweighed by the enjoyment

Legalize it.  See above.  Also, there's still no science on the negative effects.

--Decrease the number of people who are taking drugs
-Now, consider a vaccination against these drugs
-By vaccinating someone against these drugs, they do not gain the benefits of taking them
-with the benefits gone, they have no incentive to take drugs
-therefore, even those that are prone to misjudging the effects will not take drugs
-so the total negative benefits will decrease
-so, provided both of the following hold:
--the vaccine works
--the cost of giving people the vaccine is more cost-effective than increasing the benefits or decreasing the negative effects of the drugs-it is logical for the government to try to vaccinate as many people as possible

note that I am only considering those who do not have an addiction to drugs in the above.

In this second CBA you fail to account for the value of protecting civil liberties and the importance of individual choice to a functioning society.

To sum, you're employing a cost/benefit analysis to an issue where we don't know what the costs or the benefits are.  You have an unpopular (and in my opinion unsupportable) understanding of morality and the role of government.  Your cost/benefit analysis of government action fails to account for fundamental human rights.  Finally, you don't consider alternate courses of action (legalization) that offer a better solution than vaccination.

[Sowelu]

I feel like when some of us are arguing we're talking about pot, ecstacy or alcohol, and while some of us are arguing we're talking about PCP.

I'd be willing to argue for PCP being an inherantly-bad drug with no societal, social or personal benefit whatsoever (unless there's some medicinal usage in certain doses?  I don't know).  "Some people like the feeling" isn't a valid argument for it, either, because some people like (insert violent crime here).  When people take PCP, police and bystanders die a lot more often than they otherwise would.  Can anyone argue that PCP, specifically, even as part of a generalized program...should not be vaccinated against as a matter of principle (if it was easy, safe, harmless, free, and without side effects)?

[ChairmanPoo]

Also, there's the issue of ethicalness of performing medical procedures without the patient's consent, which is a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

No it isn't. The (actually pretty much ceremonial) Hippocratic oath says nothing about informed consent. It's a gross violation of patient autonomy laws and the professional code of ethics (which, unlike the Hippocratic oath, is not ceremonial at all, as medical colleges can get you suspended).

IMO the only time when denying the patient right to reject treatment is justifiable is when you're dealing with a highly contagious disease.

you can reject treatment. However, there is the concept of mandatory reportable diseases, which are important because of public health issues, and must be reported to health departments (overriding patient privacy concerns). Which might in turn result in you getting quarantined.

[Graebeard]

Surprisingly, PCP is less illegal than pot (schedule II vs. schedule I) according to the federal U.S. government.  The FDA considers both PCP and pot to have a "high potential for abuse" and to either "lead to severe psychological or physical dependence" or lack "accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."  The difference, according to the law, is that PCP has an accepted medical use (anesthetic) while pot has none.

Conversations about personal liberty and responsibility aside, who in their right mind would trust these people to decide what's right for you to do with your body when they think pot, ecstasy, mushrooms, and peyote (schedule I) are more dangerous, or even as dangerous, as cocaine, fentanyl (30 times stronger than pure heroine), methamphetamine (schedule II)?  I'm sure as hell not letting those guys near me or my kids.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

What about when giving children vaccinations? I sure as hell can't imagine any child that wants to get an injection.

Parents can make decisions for their children. A parent should still have right to refuse any kind of vaccination for his child, provided it's not administered as a measure to prevent a pandemic.

Not when you're talking about diseases, no. Because you see, this funny thing happens when enough people are convinced by raving lunatics that vaccines are a scam or poison or some other batshit insane drivel: diseases start appearing again, and then they mutate in the un-vaccinated hosts, which increases the likelihood that they can then start infecting hosts vaccinated against their old variants.


Even if your immune system is tuned to attack certain chemicals (which would only be a very limited subset even of those dubbed "harmful," since amphetamines are widely prescribed for a variety of things, and opiates comprise the most common pain killers, not to mention potential new medications synthesized from or otherwise related to currently illegal drugs), it's not going to make it have no effect on you, it's going to give you a (potentially life threatening) allergic reaction, possibly weaken the desired effects, and probably shorten their duration. Which means someone who was unwillingly vaccinated who wants to use something would end up taking more, bringing them closes to a dangerous dose and requiring them to buy more, increasing demand and putting more money in the pockets of the black market dealers you're trying to shut down. Although trying to mandate such "vaccines" (even ones that would cause potentially life-threatening complications when being treated with legal prescription drugs) is exactly the kind of pants-on-head retarded thing that would fit perfectly with the war on drugs, sadly.

[optimumtact]

tl;dr nanny state must  ban that which is not good for us

If you aren't going to contribute then please don't post.

I have seen lots of discussion about the costs of Illegal Street drug use on the individual and the society as a whole. Your points about Illegal Street drug use not being the cause of violence are valid and the health side of things is still subject to much FUD. But I think (and this is my personal opinion) that much of the crime that is related to Illegal street drugs comes from the money side of things. Illegal Drugs are very very expensive for obvious reasons. The addicts and users need some way to fund their purchase of drugs and because they often can't hold down a job or get one that pays highly enough they turn to crime to find a way to provide for their abuse. This I think is the number one problem that arises from Illegal drug abuse, the economic, societal and cultural effects of Drug related crime. I think it's clearly obvious to anyone who lives in a major city that many areas are turned into slums (comparatively) by the Illegal drug trade.

There also has been discussion about what the governments role is, I would argue that the government is there to enforce the will of the majority. Right now all Illegal drugs are seen as needing to be controlled by the general populace. Therefore the government will place laws and schemes into place to carry out the will of the people. I think that a vaccine for illegal drugs, if used on those who have (as others have said) not responded to any other treatments, would be a generally accepted course. Of course I can only speak for New Zealand and can't speak for other countries.

I think it comes down to weighing up the cost to society of Illegal drug abuse versus the cost to a single person who receives the vaccine.
nb: liberty and freedom come into these costs

I think that it's clear in this case from the original post that when we speak about drugs, we are referring to the illegal drugs. That was how I took the word to be used as.

[Sowelu]

People like having drugs illegal because their users have such odious habits.  Even if meth were legal and always had been, people would be saying "God, I wish we could just throw all the meth users in prison, they are disgusting".