Posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u
If, every time somebody dropped acid, they decided they were Superman and drove down the street backwards, it would be easy to convince you, I suppose.
Much more plausible case for your side, yes. Even then, I don't see the need to make the (unprecedented) Superacid illegal, as opposed to simply prosecuting Superman for driving down the street backwards.
But sometimes they just sit around and giggle. Sometimes they just go to raves and don’t get into any accidents. Sometimes they go to class and, although they are acting weird, don’t hurt anybody.
Yes, probably almost always. Why is that? I say that it has to do with the character and values of the drug users.
You never know. Just like someone who is psychotic isn’t killing or hurting people all day long. It’s not constant.
Should we lock up all psychotics, assuming they have a higher frequency of assaulting others? What if they have a lower frequency of assaulting others?
Should we lock up individuals who sport "Hell's Angels" jackets, since "their type" have a higher frequency of assault than does the general population of psychotics?
(As to my last 3 questions, I would answer "no")
No, laziness should not be against the law.
It is just one of the negatives of drug abuse.
” Listing three terrible things that happened to me as a result of other people’s drug abuse is a straw man argument?
It is when you start implying that those experiences will be come everyone’s experience, all the time. “
No, it isn’t.
“I saw the law is not askew, because if you have chronic pain, the benefit of the pain relief exceeds the deficit of the drug’s negatives.”
“That doesn’t answer my question.”
Yes it does. You asked me, is the law askew? I said no.
“Should we lock up all psychotics,”
Yes, we used to, until they were all let out due in the early 70s. People who have no grip on reality need to be kindly locked up. Otherwise they are repeat victims of crime as well as offenders.
They roam all over the cities. It is morally reprehensible. They wander around with poop in their pants, screaming at people who aren’t there, sleeping in the freezing rain. . .
that is not freedom. That is a nation who does not give a rat’s butt about people who are out of their minds, and does not want to be bothered about taking care of them.
Sure it is. It's no different than arguing that cutting welfare will put old people out on the street. You find a few cases of some elderly person being evicted because they couldn't afford their rent, and hold that up as an example of what's going to happen, with the tacit assertion that this is what's going to happen to all the old people, everywhere.
People who have no grip on reality need to be kindly locked up. Otherwise they are repeat victims of crime as well as offenders.
I've read that before, but this article disputes the latter part:
"In spite of the sometimes frightening behavior, people with schizophrenia are no more likely to behave violently than are those in the general population.In spite of the sometimes frightening behavior, people with schizophrenia are no more likely to behave violently than are those in the general population. "
http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/schizophrenia/complications.html
Then of course we have the question of whether we want to lock up all individuals who belong to any class that has a crime rate high enough above the average. I say no, the government must treat its citizens as individuals.
Referring to another example I made, I would not just lock up someone who wears a Hell's Angels jacket, even though he belongs to a group that has a far higher than average crime rate. The particular Hell's Angel jacket wearer would have to commit a crime first.
As your point that psychotics are more likely to be victims of crime and therefore should be locked up, I would propose that we lock up the offenders rather than the victims of assault and theft.
It is just one of the negatives of drug abuse.
Your list of drug abuse negatives again:
An increase in assaultive behavior.
An increase in negligent behavior.
An increase in irresponsible behavior.
An increase in crazy behavior.
An increase in lazy behavior.
You have removed laziness as a candidate for criminal behavior. What about "crazy behavior"?
For example, what if we found a person babbling meaninglessly: would that qualify?
“You have removed laziness as a candidate for criminal behavior. What about “crazy behavior”?”
I did not list laziness as criminal behavior.
I listed it as NEGATIVE behavior. Everything on that list is deemed “negative behavior.”
Crazy behavior, as in psychotic, as a I said before, should result in kind institutionalization. There is a degree of crazy.
I know Libertarians are all black and white and get irritated with shades of gray. Is one glass of wine ok? How about two? What about if I am 500 pounds? What if I am really thirsty and that’s all there is to drink? It’s like arguing with a preschooler. You get to a point when you realize, they don’t want an answer, they just want to argue.
There is a little crazy - like when you are overcome with grief at a funeral, or get depressed because you just got divorced, or if you get assaulted and become somewhat paranoid. These little bit of crazy does not need institutionalization.
There is a lot crazy - like when you think people are cockroaches and spray them with Raid, or when you scream at people who are not there, or when you wander the streets in pee-dripping clothes. That lot of crazy does need institutionalization.
To implement this radical plan will require time, attention and judgement. It will require maturity and effort and discernment. It is not easy, it costs money, and mistakes will be made.
It is much easier to just let lunatics dissolve in their misery and take us down with them. It is not, however, the right thing to do.
“Some 28% of those with both schizophrenia and substance abuse were convicted of violent crime, compared to 8% of those with schizophrenia and no substance abuse, and 5% of the general population.”
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15563
My reason, though, for desiring the kind institutionalization (NOT the punitive imprisonment) of severely crazy people is not simply to prevent crime.
It is a kindness to them. They are dependent and helpless.
Just as I “forcibly” detain and shelter and care for my kids, or we “forcibly” detain and shelter and care for the senile and demented, and the severely mentally impaired -
we need to do so for the crazy. They are just as needy of sane adult supervision.
“Sure it is. It’s no different than arguing that cutting welfare will put old people out on the street. You find a few cases of some elderly person being evicted because they couldn’t afford their rent, and hold that up as an example of what’s going to happen, with the tacit assertion that this is what’s going to happen to all the old people, everywhere.
No, it’s like arguing that cutting welfare will put some welfare dependent people on the street.
I never said ALL bad things will happen to ALL people. I went out of my way to emphasize that.
I remember you saying that MOST of the peole who would take any potentially addictive drug will, at best, only quit when it starts to kill them, and that MOST of the people they'd interact with would be "defensless" old or disabled people or children.
That's the only attempt I saw to quantify the actul risk or effects.
No, I did not say most of the people who take drugs will only quit when it starts to kill them. They might decide they don’t like the feeling of getting high. They might notice any number of negative effects. They might quit because their loved ones disapprove. Or because they are afraid of jail time. Or because it messes up their work performance or study habits. Or because of the cost.
I also did not say that drug addicts only interact with defenseless people. I did say they defenseless people are the most susceptible to their bad behaviors. Obviously.
And no, I don’t think everyone will stay stoned 24/7. Most of those who can, would, but. . .
I think they will:
a) realize they are killing themselves and endangering others, and quit, possibly with long term side effects;
b) keep using until they die; or
c) commit some sort of crime wherein they get caught and spend their time detoxing in prison. Depending on the crime(s) they may die in there.
149 posted on Monday, June 21, 2010 6:19:51 PM by Persevero (It's going to be a long summer.)
I also did not say that drug addicts only interact with defenseless people. I did say they defenseless people are the most susceptible to their bad behaviors. Obviously.
The high do not just sit quietly in their armchairs. They interact with people, often very negatively, and most of the people they interact with are either somewhat or completely defenseless.
165 posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:17:47 PM by Persevero (It's going to be a long summer.)
“And no, I don’t think everyone will stay stoned 24/7. Most of those who can, would, but. . .
I think they will:
a) realize they are killing themselves and endangering others, and quit, possibly with long term side effects;”
Yes, people who are abusing drugs are killing themselves, usually slowly. Those drugs all have many negative physical side effects, and if they keep abusing them, they will eventually kill you.
That does not mean I said that people who take drugs will only quit when it starts to kill them.
That does mean that I believe drug abuse is a way of killing yourself. When we realize we are stupidly killing ourselves, some of us have the wisdom to stop.
“The high do not just sit quietly in their armchairs. They interact with people, often very negatively, and most of the people they interact with are either somewhat or completely defenseless.”
Yes, there are the somewhat defenseless (me when I’m walking down the road, you when you are sitting at the bus stop, my neighbor out gardening in his front yard, your friend working the cash register at the SaveMart) - none of us prepared to be irrationally or accidentally endangered by a person who has deliberately made themselves irrational, uncoordinated, or otherwise out of it;
And the completely defenseless (the child, the frail elder, the mentally impaired, the sound asleep). They are more often victims of the neglect of the stoned people who are supposed to be taking care of them. Because the somewhat defenseless are not usually so dependent on others for basic care.
But we don’t walk around in a constant state of adrenaline, weapons pointed in all directions and body armor on. We have the understandable, normal state of just sitting in the movie theatre or shopping for clothes or eating in a restaurant while not having to constantly LOOK out for a stoned idiot.
Accidents happen. People go crazy outside of drug abuse. People are born defective in the head, or suffer injury.
However, to deliberately make yourself stupid, irrational, comatose, or crazy is criminal. That deliberate choice endangers us all.
I’m tired of watching you backpedal.
I’m tired of you accusing me of saying things I don’t say.
If you think I've lied about what you've said, you know where the button is.
What button???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.