Print

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

[Phmcw]

I, personally, think he got a point, and that's exactly why we must work our asses to get a sane government ; every thing that is under the control of the government can be used against us if we loose control of said government. Of course you don't control anything that is not under the control of the government, so it can be used against you even more easily (one thing that amaze me is how some people cannot see this when they pay more for a worse health-care than us).

As for drug legalization, forget it : drug is, has always been, the weapon of choice of the CIA, and is the first source of revenue of the mafia. Anyone legalizing it would have to take on both at the same time. I doubt even the president of the US could do it.

(PS: of course, drug legalization would instantly kill the cartel ; just make it relatively cheap and grown in the country, and you reduce the benefits of drug trafficking to those of contraband. Just legalize prostitution and make sure the illegal gun market isn't too huge and they'll starve, but they'll kill you first).

Hmm Can someone with legal knowledge look at that bill. If things are what they look like, things are starting to look seriously grim for America.

[G-Flex]

PS: of course, drug legalization would instantly kill the cartel ; just make it relatively cheap and grown in the country, and you reduce the benefits of drug trafficking to those of contraband.

Reduce the benefits, but won't eliminate them. Growing outside the US would still be cheaper, so there would still potentially be significant benefits to drug smuggling, especially since the infrastructure and methods are already in place. Same as with other things manufactured overseas, but with added inertia.

[Phmcw]

PS: of course, drug legalization would instantly kill the cartel ; just make it relatively cheap and grown in the country, and you reduce the benefits of drug trafficking to those of contraband.

Reduce the benefits, but won't eliminate them. Growing outside the US would still be cheaper, so there would still potentially be significant benefits to drug smuggling, especially since the infrastructure and methods are already in place. Same as with other things manufactured overseas, but with added inertia.

Hmm yeah, but the benefits would be reduced at what? 10% of what they were? Currently the benefits of heroine trafficking are what? 10000% since the raw opium to the dose sold in the street?

[GlyphGryph]

I've already heard the argument several times over - "Well, we pay for your healthcare so you're obligated to avoid risky activities". I've been to countries where that sort of argument has been taken to heart. I'm completely opposed to it.

And yes, better a servant to the government than a servant to the corporations, I suppose - the same way loyalty to a fuedal lord is better than subjugation by bandits and raiders. This is ignoring the fact that our current government would likely sell us right to the corporations, and instead giving you the benefit of the doubt and talking of a government responsive to the desires of the masses.

Better still to have a government that serves to protect us from the adverse influence of the corps without enslaving us to the whims of the "majority" in the process. I have no interest in being a servant to corporate bigwigs, the moral minority, order-loving bureaucrats, concern trolls, or any of the other powers that feel like everything would be better if only they could force everyone to do what they wanted.

Then you really should be pro nationalized healthcare, because it means no such thing happens

Truth be told, I'm not opposed to it in and of itself. Its certainly possible it can be done right and without the obsessive moralizing and sense of entitlement its supporters have in many places. I feel like in the US, at this point, it would end up essentially being a corporate gift that let the "moralists" better argue their case in the process.

[G-Flex]

Better still to have a government that serves to protect us from the adverse influence of the corps without enslaving us to the whims of the "majority" in the process. I have no interest in being a servant to corporate bigwigs, the moral minority, order-loving bureaucrats, concern trolls, or any of the other powers that feel like everything would be better if only they could force everyone to do what they wanted.

Then it's a good thing we live in a society that both has democratic elements as well as protections against majority rule?

Also, what exactly is a "concern troll"?


At any rate, I agree that government in the US isn't anything near what it should be, but in my opinion, the only reason they'd sell us out to corporations is because the corporations bought them out in the first place.

And honestly, you can't have protection from the corporations without reasonable regulation, and the fact that insurance companies have us all by the balls is not a good scenario. Basic health care should be a right, not a privilege.

[GlyphGryph]

And honestly, you can't have protection from the corporations without reasonable regulation, and the fact that insurance companies have us all by the balls is not a good scenario.

And again, I still don't disagree with you.

Concern trolls is probably completely the wrong word. Those who think its important they be allowed to prevent you from doing things because it might be bad for you, even if you know and understand and accept the risks. See: The people who try to get skate parks shut down because the children might hurt themselves. Basically, people who think they knows whats best (usually without evidence, clear justifications, or a reasonable understanding that others may have different goals in life than themselves.)

Suggestions on the appropriate word here would be appreciated.

[scriver]

Carebears. Also works doubly in Swedish because doing somebody a disfavour while thinking you're doing them a favour is called a "bear favour".

Edit:

I've already heard the argument several times over - "Well, we pay for your healthcare so you're obligated to avoid risky activities". I've been to countries where that sort of argument has been taken to heart. I'm completely opposed to it.

Though nationalised healthcare does not mean automatically the government will be able to tell you what to do or not do, like an insurance company does. That's all in the legislation. In my mind, a system where the state can do that goes against the very purpose of nationalising healthcare, that is, to provide healthcare to everybody.

[Phmcw]

I'm not aware of any restriction on the activities I'm allowed to do, or of anything that I could do that would reduce my coverage.
If anything, insurance company are the most restrictive in this area, I'm pretty sure that if such a proposition was made in Belgium, the minister responsible would be under siege for days.

[DJ]

You cannot assume that people understand the risks and consequences. Ever. It's as much a flawed, ideal situation as assuming the government knows what's best for every individual.

People can be manipulated from birth. Hell, from before birth. They are imperfect, not always well-educated, and not always entirely rational. None of these things mean that they deserve to be tricked into harming themselves through misinformation and advertisements designed to take advantage of them. Companies have learned to be very, very good at this, and your argument kind of falls apart when you realize that they are good at creating demand, not only supply, and that people aren't self-created wonderbeings capable of withstanding any amount of manipulation thrown at them, and if, for example, I am susceptible to something like pseudoscientific hoax medicine, that doesn't mean I deserve to die or be harmed by it.


There's also the simple fact that, indirectly, people harming themselves causes harm to society. Mutual protection is one of the common goals of any society, and sometimes that means telling them not to do something that, for whatever reason, they don't realize they shouldn't do. The harm it does to society is clear enough: It incentivizes those who would manipulate others for profit, and lots of mutually-shared cost go into the raising, support, health, and well-being of all individuals. In stark economic terms, society allowing someone to destroy themselves is ruining their own investment. A lot of effort, shared by family, friends, government, and society at large goes toward an individual throughout that individual's life, so wasting that is... well, a waste, and the health problems caused by self-destructive behavior also have an impact on society.

A guy who needs medical treatment because he got into a car wreck by acting like a fool, or got addicted to heroin, or has been smoking his entire life, has a negative impact on society, because he is no longer productive and there is a cost to treating that person. There is negative economic value to a person being self-destructive, and not only to that person. So even if you think that someone who acts self-destructive somehow deserves it (despite the clear and present influences throughout that person's life and the fact that you can't count on everyone or even anyone to always be well-informed and rational and perfect), that behavior still impacts the rest of us in a large variety of ways. Even if you don't give a damn at all about someone who uses heroin and dies of an overdose, that behavior is still seriously economically disadvantageous to the rest of us.

Think of all the effort that goes into feeding, clothing, educating, and otherwise supporting a person up through, for instance, their 18th birthday. Now imagine that person going out and dying due to some horrible decision that regulations are there to prevent. That's a lot of investment wasted, and in the case of the use of harmful products, that's a lot of profit going toward those who make a living effectively being parasites on the rest of us by selling things they know are dangerous. Incentivizing parasitic and self-destructive behavior are not good for society even if you disregard the argument that protecting the weak is ethically responsible behavior in itself. You might say that you're only protecting them from themselves and that that's silly, but that isn't even true; even if someone engages in self-destructive behavior due to their own cognitive and behavior patterns, people are not born with those, and they can be manipulated, for the same reasons we don't allow the marketing of alcohol and tobacco to minors.

Pretty much all of this applies to junk food as much as it applies to drugs. Except obesity is far more common than drug problems, so it's a much bigger drain on the society's resources. So, should we ban burgers and soda under penalty of years in prison?

[fqllve]

I'm pretty sure G-Flex said he was in favor of decriminalization but not deregulation. And just because obesity is more common than drug abuse it doesn't make it more dangerous. It isn't more dangerous. There are some drugs where it's remarkably easy to overdose, datura for example. Only datura isn't a controlled substance in the US.

[G-Flex]

I'm not aware of any restriction on the activities I'm allowed to do, or of anything that I could do that would reduce my coverage.
If anything, insurance company are the most restrictive in this area, I'm pretty sure that if such a proposition was made in Belgium, the minister responsible would be under siege for days.

People have been denied coverage for extremely bizarre reasons that shouldn't even be legal. Including people with very serious diseases. It doesn't take much to google some examples. See also: Denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

<wall of text>

Pretty much all of this applies to junk food as much as it applies to drugs. Except obesity is far more common than drug problems, so it's a much bigger drain on the society's resources. So, should we ban burgers and soda under penalty of years in prison?

Junk food is a much, much hazier area, as what is objectively "healthy" behavior is harder to determine there.

First off, your analogy is a little disingenuous because I don't think drug users should face "years in prison" either. Secondly, the problem isn't any particular food, it's patterns in diet and (very importantly here) exercise that aren't always easy to analyze and vary greatly depending on the individual. Another problem is that food is a necessity, and not everyone can afford healthy food, hence obesity being more of a problem in poorer communities. It's a pretty complex issue, all things considered.

However, yes, I do think that stemming the obesity problem is a pressing issue for western society, and that society at large has an interest in doing so. The question is how to do this appropriately. For instance, in many areas, it's not even legal to serve soda in schools, school nutritional/lunch programs are coming under scrutiny, and some states have or have proposed taxes on soft drinks in order to incentivize moderation. I don't mind the idea of economic incentives for people to sell and purchase healthier food, because not only might it prevent unhealthy behavior, but it also might put healthier foods on a more even playing field with regard to choices available to people without a lot of money.

I'm pretty sure G-Flex said he was in favor of decriminalization but not deregulation. And just because obesity is more common than drug abuse it doesn't make it more dangerous. It isn't more dangerous. There are some drugs where it's remarkably easy to overdose, datura for example. Only datura isn't a controlled substance in the US.

I'm in favor of decriminalization in the sense that I don't think someone should go to jail simply for using drugs, because it doesn't actually help. However, I think there needs to be an incentive to not use, so some sort of mandatory treatment program might be a good idea, or perhaps it depends on the drug in question.

[GlyphGryph]

However, I think there needs to be an incentive to not use, so some sort of mandatory treatment program might be a good idea, or perhaps it depends on the drug in question.

Do you think those recreational drugs that have been shown to have minimal serious side effects should be legal, at least? (marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc?) Do those drugs even need a particular incentive to disuse, since they aren't really any more dangerous than any other hobby, and the existing disincentives to continue a hobby beyond reasonable limits would still apply?

[Sheb]

People have been denied coverage for extremely bizarre reasons that shouldn't even be legal. Including people with very serious diseases. It doesn't take much to google some examples. See also: Denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

Phmcw is (like me) Belgian. Health insurance is mandatory and paid by the state if you cannot afford it. And we don't have those problems over here, as far as I know.

[Phmcw]

People have been denied coverage for extremely bizarre reasons that shouldn't even be legal. Including people with very serious diseases. It doesn't take much to google some examples. See also: Denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

Phmcw is (like me) Belgian. Health insurance is mandatory and paid by the state if you cannot afford it. And we don't have those problems over here, as far as I know.

A quick shearch (in French) returned nothing, an I know of no cases where it has been a concern. In Belgium, of course, my point being that in practice, nationalized health-care will be less restrictive than privately funded one.

[DJ]

Virtually every doctor will tell you that burgers and soda are bad for your health, and they are both addictive. More so than LSD, or even marijuana. And yeah, I think that programs to discourage fast food consumption in favour of healthy food would be a good idea. But at the end of the day people should be allowed to engage in self-destructive behaviour if they want to.

As for dangers of obesity, AFAIK cardiovascular are still the No1 cause of death in USA, and most of those are caused by unhealthy diet.