From: Walpurgis (walpurg@myrealbox.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 04:05:11 MDT
On 17 Jul 2002 at 12:35, Mermaid . wrote:
> [Walpurgis]The impact will be adverse to some degree - unavoidably. I
> think the problem is the *extent* of the negative effect. If other
> drugs prove to be just as negative (or less so, but not more so) as
> tobacco/alcohol then they are justified. Unless you want to reform/ban
> these two drugs themselves of course. Otherwise, the position would be
> hypocritical.
>
> [Mermaid]I was being general and clubbing drugs, alcohol and tobacco,
> all of which have a somewhat negative effective on popular notions of
> healthy living.
Indeed. But the point still stands about extent.
> [Mermaid]Let me be precise. Any individual behaviour having an adverse
> effect on the lives of other individuals, thereby trespassing on their
> rights(rights being the key word), is reason enough for the state to
> step in and regulate behaviour.
Also good reason for the state to step out. Right now, the state is
interferring with my right to choose what I party with. I do not like
alcohol, I want something else. But it is illegal.
> [Mermaid]There is use and then there is substance abuse and substance
> dependency. All of them are totally different terms. Substance abuse
> includes anything that can be termed as 'harmful', physically and
> mentally, for the user. Most people who develop a dependency on
> drugs/alcohol/nicotine(or caffine, for that matter)are usually first
> substance abusers before they become dependents. Dependency means
> higher resistance, addiction etc. Neither of these definitions take
> into account anything more than the personal cost to the drug
> user/abuser/addict. Over and above all this, there is the social cost,
> the economic cost and the emotional cost to his/her immediate circle
> of friends and family.
All good. But this is an argument against any kind of dependancy.
"Drugs" do not necessarily lead to this.
People are going to be drug dependant regardless of the law. If
drugs are not illegal, there are more and better ways of dealing
with/informing addicts AND abusers and users alike.
> [Mermaid]No. Food doesnt need to have a age limit. Food for a child is
> a parent's responsibility. Companies do not sell mind altering drugs.
Any food alters the mind slightly. Companies also sell lots of over-
the-counter mind-altering stuff too.
> So, decriminalisation is the
> first step. Legalisation can only occur after a prolonged period of
> decriminalisation and the study of its impact on society. If we want
> to discuss corporate greed, its a whole different discussion anyways.
This is a good argument.
> [Mermaid]I dont think tax payer's money is being used to treat people
> who eat junkfood or those who do not exercise. But IRS says
> weight-loss programs for Obesity are deductible. This doesnt include
> the cost of diet foods. It is applicable only if obesity is diagnosed
> or some other specific disease is being treated. Being overweight, by
> itself, isnt considered an ailment that qualifies an individual to
> write off weight-loss program expenses.
I was referring to the effects of weight/no exercise, like heart-
disease. All very costly and due to
laziness/junk/lifestlye/poverty/etcetc
> [Walpurgis]Perhaps the tax payer shouldn't pay for anything they don't
> agree with? I don't want to fund the military for example.
>
> [Mermaid]Then you shouldnt. You have a voice. You have a vote. Use it.
I do. Yet the UK is still selling arms to Indian and Pakistan *still*
close to nuclear war and selling arms to the US who are supply
Israel in turn.
> [Walpurgis] Fairness would require a radical overhaul of our political
> system.
>
> [Mermaid]True, but hardly relevant. We are not talking about fairness,
> we are concerned about the effects and ill effects of
> drugs/alcohol/tobacco on society and community.
Ok then, *I* am talking about fairness. For me social issues are
almost always about fairness.
It is fair for me to have a choice to be affected by a drug and not
suffer the consequences of your choice and it is fair for *you* not to
choose and not to suffer the consequences of my choice.
> [Mermaid]The cost of your pleasure is your burden. Do not expect me or
> any other tax payer to subsidise YOUR drug of choice.
You like extreme sports. You back your back. My taxes pay for your
care (I'm in the UK talking about the NHS here). You lik gardening.
You cut a finger off. My taxes pay for your care. I like LSD. I fall
over whilst high (not likely though, as I usualy spend a trip on the
floor). Your taxes pay for my care.
Unless your pleasure is your burden. In which case, anything you
were doing that is pleasureable shouldn't be treated by tax funded
health authorities.
Unless drugs are a BAD pleasure - but this is a moral argument isn't
it?
You can either assess risk (xtreme sport, gardening, tab of acid) or
moralise (this pleasure fine and acceptable, this not).
> Everything is
> taxed. As they say, you cannot escape it...death and taxes..:) and
> even death is taxed!! I pay sales tax for bottled water. I see no
> reason why drugs, alcohol and tobacco users should get special
> treatment when it comes to taxes.
I don't disagree. Drugs should be taxed as I said myself. But you
can only do that if it is legal.
> [Walpurgis]It pays for itself.
>
> [Mermaid]No, it doesnt. Its called 'blackmail'.
Uh... I don't follow your argument. If you tax drugs and use the
money towards health-care when the uers are damaged, then it
pays for itself.
> [Walpurgis]Not all average joes are fit, healthy non-substance
> ab/users
>
> [Mermaid]Again, irrelevant.
But you talked about the "avergae joe" in the first place, making
your intial point irrelevant. Or was it? Both my point and yours
seemed entirely relevant and I will decide relevance for myself
thanks.
> [Mermaid]Maybe, I should have been more clear. I am sure it is about a
> great deal of other things. I am only concerned about the cost
> incurred by the rest of society for an individual's personal habits.
> All I am asking for is personal responsibility for the decision to
> take drugs.
The only way one can be personally responsible with drugs is if
drugs are legal. Criminalising drug users automatically makes them
irresponsible and at risk from state sanction and criminal action.
> [Mermaid]Yes, they should. Not only that, if they are concerned about
> health effects and have doubts about their well being, they should
> also refrain from using drugs.
No. Occasional drug use is a pleasure. A little poison here and
there isn't going to ruin your health. We all do something unhealthy.
You're asking for a nation of fitness/dietry freaks.
> Once again, it only underscores my
> original point. Responsibility. Personal responsibility for one's
> personal actions and choices.
I'm not disagreeing with responsiblilty.
> [Walpurgis]Agian, this rule must be implemented to influence the
> behaviour of ALL, not just drugs ab/users.
>
> [Mermaid]What does this mean? Until the problem of pollution is
> solved, until people stop consuming chocolate, until junk food is
> banned and until there is no military, I have to allow my taxes to pay
> for a drug addict's treatment program and subsidise a drug habit by
Yes. I see legalised drug use a tiny problem compared to pollution,
war and junk-food.
> not taxing it(it being a product which is legal to purchase) while the
> drug user does not take any personal responsibility for his actions?
Taking drugs is personal responsibility. If you make an informed
decision, aware of risks and still take drugs you are still exercising
this responsibility. You equate responsibility with abstanence -
which it is not. If you want drug users to *stop* and not make their
own choices, then say so.
> [Mermaid]Even with the pre conditions of legalisation of drugs that I
> listed being true for alcohol and tobacco which is freely available,
> there is an enormous cost to society. I can only express amazement(and
> a little amusement)with regard to your expectations of legalisation of
> drugs with absolutely no rules or regulations or constraints.
Uh... I don't know why you think I hold that position. Legalisation
involves rules and regulations MORE so than criminalisation! It also
allows room for non-clinical study, information, taxes, employment,
pleasure, choice....
Walpurgis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.noumenal.net/exiles
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the government police
and other authorities can, with out a court order, demand that phone
companies, internet service providers and postal operators hand over
detailed information on individuals such as their name and address, phone
calls made and received, source and destination of emails, the identity of
websites visited and mobile phone location data, which is capable of
revealing the user's whereabouts at any given time and is accurate to
within a few hundred metres.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,731074,00.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:48 MDT