Social Mumford and "Recreational" Drugs

[eldorado]

If Person A thinks their drug use doesn't affect others, but what if it does?

If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Their 'thoughts' about their actions don't affect anything, any more than someone 'thinking' killing others is fine gives them a defence for murder in court.

I really don't see whats unclear about this?

I have expressed this idea perfectly cogently

 

[Gralin]

If I can drive my car at 160km/h on the Freeway and 3a.m. and there are no other cars around me, is that acceptable behaviour? If I am a capable driver and it doesn't affect anyone, is there any problem with it?

If you do this should other people be banned from driving just in case they do that in the future?

 

[MrPremiership]

If you do this should other people be banned from driving just in case they do that in the future?

Even if i don't do it, there should be rules banning it

 

[Gralin]

Even if i don't do it, there should be rules banning it

I asked if people should be banned from driving in case they speed

 

[MrPremiership]

If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Their 'thoughts' about their actions don't affect anything, any more than someone 'thinking' killing others is fine gives them a defence for murder in court.

I really don't see whats unclear about this?

I have expressed this idea perfectly cogently

You have expressed it well. Everyone can do whatever they like if it doesn't affect anyone.

Far too simple as a rule.

 

[MrPremiership]

I asked if people should be banned from driving in case they speed

Apologies Gralin, I mis-read that.

People can get banned from driving if they speed, (if you get enough demerits) - can't believe I got $140 fine for going 104 in a 100 zone.
But that wasn't the point of my post.

I think we're far more advanced as a society to accept that someone can do whatever they want if it doesn't affect others.

 

[eldorado]

You have expressed it well. Everyone can do whatever they like if it doesn't affect anyone.

Far too simple as a rule.

If one assumes the right to dictate to others what they do to themselves, I guess this approach would be incompatible.

To me, it's very much libertarian vs authoritarian, and your rights over yourself are total, while those that adversely affect others are to be strenuously limited by the laws of the state.

 

[MrPremiership]

If one assumes the right to dictate to others what they do to themselves, I guess this approach would be incompatible.

To me, it's very much libertarian vs authoritarian, and your rights over yourself are total, while those that adversely affect others are to be strenuously limited by the laws of the state.

Thanks eldorado, good discussion. Was good to see another view and you've given me a lot to consider.

 

[Carl Spackler]

If one assumes the right to dictate to others what they do to themselves, I guess this approach would be incompatible.

To me, it's very much libertarian vs authoritarian, and your rights over yourself are total, while those that adversely affect others are to be strenuously limited by the laws of the state.

As a moderator on this site you undermine your own hyper-libertarian argument.

There are surely comments that are banned here which do no harm. Yet you feel the urge to enforce levels of decency with regards to language. Language that is in common, non-harmful usage elsewhere in society. Surely I can say * here when it’s used in 90% of every day conversation.

EDIT: Apparently not.

 

[Carl Spackler]

If one assumes the right to dictate to others what they do to themselves, I guess this approach would be incompatible.

To me, it's very much libertarian vs authoritarian, and your rights over yourself are total, while those that adversely affect others are to be strenuously limited by the laws of the state.

A mother that snorts coke while pregnant and creates an addicted baby. Ok or no?

A dad who also snorts, gets fired and loses the house?

 

[eldorado]

A mother that snorts coke while pregnant and creates an addicted baby. Ok or no?

A dad who also snorts, gets fired and loses the house?

What do you reckon, based on what I've said so far?

Sent from my TRT-LX2 using Tapatalk

 

[Carl Spackler]

What do you reckon, based on what I've said so far?

Sent from my TRT-LX2 using Tapatalk

I reckon no, of course not. But I also reckon that the standard of “it’s ok if you don’t hurt anyone else” is an unenforceable one. Or at least cannot be enforced until after the damage is done. And with the damage being so great and so common it influences my position.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Food for thought.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...hare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

Researchers are particularly concerned with marijuana use among the young because THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, most sharply affects the parts of the brain that develop during adolescence.

"The adolescent brain is undergoing significant neurodevelopment well into the 20s, and the regions that are last to develop are those regions that are most populated by cannabis receptors and are also very critical to cognitive functioning," says Randi Schuster. Schuster is the director of neuropsychology at Massachusetts General Hospital's Center for Addiction Medicine and the study's lead author.

...

"I remain optimistic that we can show recovery of function with sustained abstinence," she says.