Planetarion Forums - Britain

JonnyBGood · 26 Jul 2004, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

dante?

For ****s sake dante did you have to mention every single one of my ****ing points while I was writing them you ****ing idea stealing communist.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

For ****s sake dante did you have to mention every single one of my ****ing points while I was writing them you ****ing idea stealing communist.

I did the main one half way up the page, though.

Dante Hicks · 26 Jul 2004, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

For ****s sake dante did you have to mention every single one of my ****ing points while I was writing them you ****ing idea stealing communist.

You can't "own" ideas man.

JonnyBGood · 26 Jul 2004, 19:31

No, I can own ideas, but that's because I'm not a penniless hippy like you.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 19:32

Ride the walrus.

[edit]

I also hear Dante's stupid!

Deffeh · 26 Jul 2004, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Even ignoring the whole liberty angle if you are relying on Government needles to prevent you being a shit parent then I pity your offspring. Seriously, please don't have children.

Anyway, I'm not going to do my "power of the state" diatribe, you've all heard it. But I will say that even though I wouldn't count myself as a regular drug taker I think that drugs (for some) help to enrich your life. I've not taken heroin so I can't comment on that, but every other recreational drug I've tried I've come away with new insight. That's even true for shitty drugs like cocaine. Individuals depriving them that opportunity (for enjoyment if nothing else) seems rather foolish.

I'm not opposed to the existence of a vaccine which makes drug use impossible. It would be great for those who wanted to use it. It is slightly worrying though that we're saying parents can make lifestyle choices for their children which last their entire lives (and are potentially irreversible). Parents can already do this to an extent; e.g. sending their kids to a particular type of school. But that's not a one shot deal - children can complain over time eventually pressure their parents into changing schools and so on. And you can overcome most of your education. Potentially, you might not be able to overcome changes to your brain chemistry.

Would Deffeh support this if it was a "vaccine" against alcohol btw?

First thing first i agree with you on one point to an extent - that neither the state, or your parents should have priority over serious decisions in your life.

As to the parents jibe to start it off, are your parents shit parents then? Are my parents shit parents? Deepflows? Etc?

None of our parents could stop us taking drugs, with or without Government needles. I guess they are all hideous failures? It seems strange to me that despite you being a liberal, you think that someone else is responsible for whether or not you take drugs. The fact of life is that people will always make their own decisions regardless of guidance. My point is i think sometimes, a little force combined with a little guidance is a good method.

As to a vaccine against Alcohol, no. Nor cannabis for that matter. Both can be used for mild enjoyment. Both can be misused. Both can effectively lead you down a path of destruction, but for the sizeable sizeable majority, they provide relief.

Look at what hard drugs does to people. It might still be a minority, but its a large minority. Theres risks in every day life and i accept that. i dont want people to live just one big generic life. But saving people from their own impulses is something different to me.

I'm in a minority here, and offline. People wont quit ramming personal choice down my throat. But its different when its personal choices they dont like. Its a personal choice for a glaswegian, to wear burberry, carry a knife, get high on coke and eccies, and threaten a neighbourhood. Cool. Great. But dont expect to protect personal choices that make life for the majority worse off

JonnyBGood · 26 Jul 2004, 19:47

I've never taken drugs! I'm better than all of you put together!

Also I think you need to examine your last statement deffeh. Some random guy who lives on the northside of Dublin city deciding to take drugs does not affect the majority of the population in anyway whatsoever. There may be a valid argument that they cost public healthcare millions every year but if you're against public healthcare this argument is fairly irrelevant. Nobody's proposing not prosecuting drug users for the crimes they commit, it's merely prosecuting them for being drug users that we're against.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

None of our parents could stop us taking drugs, with or without Government needles. I guess they are all hideous failures? It seems strange to me that despite you being a liberal, you think that someone else is responsible for whether or not you take drugs.

I think he was referring to before they reach adulthood. Were you a drug user when you were 12?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Look at what hard drugs does to people. It might still be a minority, but its a large minority. Theres risks in every day life and i accept that. i dont want people to live just one big generic life. But saving people from their own impulses is something different to me.

In what sense 'does to people'? Make them a wreck? I don't see how that really is any of our concern, to use a cliché. Whilst all efforts must be made to assist people in fulfilling the choice of getting off drugs, criticising someone else's activities because you disapprove of the personal results is rather bad form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Its a personal choice for a glaswegian, to wear burberry, carry a knife, get high on coke and eccies, and threaten a neighbourhood. Cool. Great. But dont expect to protect personal choices that make life for the majority worse off

I take it you haven't read any of the discussions on personal choice, then.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There may be a valid argument that they cost public healthcare millions every year

I don't see how that's a valid argument, as it only costs the public anything because they're illegal. We're getting circular here.

Dante Hicks · 26 Jul 2004, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

As to the parents jibe to start it off, are your parents shit parents then? Are my parents shit parents? Deepflows? Etc?

None of us are addicted to heroin as far as I know. That was your point as far as I can see : "Hey, we need this - it'll help your kids not be smack heads!". I'm not worried about my kids become smack kids. Hell, I wouldn't worry unless I was the worst parent in the world. Cigarettes is another matter, but that's not so bad (in the scheme of things). Plenty of people I know are addicted to nicotine without ruining their lives or anyone elses. Just to simplify I'll say : Taking drugs is not bad. You can go too far (obviously) as you can with a wide range of activities (e.g. gambling - which I've found a lot more destructive).

Obviously if after they (my hypothetical kids) hit 18 (or whatever age we're choosing) they choose to take heroin regularly that's their business.

My point is i think sometimes, a little force combined with a little guidance is a good method.

Quote:

As to a vaccine against Alcohol, no. Nor cannabis for that matter. Both can be used for mild enjoyment. Both can be misused. Both can effectively lead you down a path of destruction, but for the sizeable sizeable majority, they provide relief.

I'm sure the majority of people who take heroin are doing it for relief. What's the difference exactly?

Quote:

Its a personal choice for a glaswegian, to wear burberry, carry a knife, get high on coke and eccies, and threaten a neighbourhood. Cool. Great. But dont expect to protect personal choices that make life for the majority worse off

I doubt many crimes are comitted under the influence of ecstacy. But anyway, do you think it's the drugs that make these people shit? Do you think if you could somehow get rid of Coke and E you wouldn't have little ****ers running round the streets being shit? I doubt it somehow.

JonnyBGood · 26 Jul 2004, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see how that's a valid argument, as it only costs the public anything because they're illegal. We're getting circular here.

We don't have to prove it's a stupid argument in every possible way. Also I've never actually seen full statistics on this question so I'd hesitate to provide a categorical statement either way on the costs of drug abuse to society. Also your point would assume we support taxes on drugs.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Also your point would assume we support taxes on drugs.

Not necessarily; I seem to remember from the last time we discussed this kind of thing in detail that the generally accepted idea was that many of the problems with drugs occurred because of easily avoided or deliberate impurities. Removing their necessity would reduce the public bill somewhat. Obviously this doesn't apply if we take my post in a literal sense, but then the 'tax money' interpretation wouldn't make sense without inferation anyway, so there we go.

[edit]

Thanks dante for the spaces after quotes!

Dante Hicks · 26 Jul 2004, 20:04

Sorry.

Deffeh · 26 Jul 2004, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've never taken drugs! I'm better than all of you put together!

Also I think you need to examine your last statement deffeh. Some random guy who lives on the northside of Dublin city deciding to take drugs does not affect the majority of the population in anyway whatsoever. There may be a valid argument that they cost public healthcare millions every year but if you're against public healthcare this argument is fairly irrelevant. Nobody's proposing not prosecuting drug users for the crimes they commit, it's merely prosecuting them for being drug users that we're against.

Maybe one random guy doing a line, injecting himself and passing out in a corner doesnt. One guy late at night on the street, begging for money unsuccessfully for his next hit, then turning to violence on an innocent passer by, does.

Come on Jonny. You live in Dublin yeah? Thats not so different from Glasgow. You've never been chased by a Junkie? Threatened by a knife? Beaten up for the sake of the change of a tenner? Please dont try and tell me peoples drug usage doesnt affect anyone else, because its simply not true.

Im not against Public Heathcare. Im against Public Healthcare extending to drug users or smokers. If you smoke, i think you should have to register yourself as a smoker and either get private healthcare, or pay more to the NHS. If you do drugs, i dont see why you should be entitled to an emergency bed. Choices? Cool, have your choices. The concequences arent nearly great enough yet, because they arent acting as deterrants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I think he was referring to before they reach adulthood. Were you a drug user when you were 12?.

No, thirteen. Hair was growing on my crotch, i was beginning to lean back in my chair to look up girls skirts, i thought south park was actually funny, and i was skipping school to go smoke dope with a mate. Are you telling me my decision was ok because i was an adult?

And anyway? Where are you going with this? Parents only have obligation till your 12? Your point makes no sense, because presumably 12 or 13 would be the first time you'd consider using these preventative measures anyway.

Quote:

In what sense 'does to people'? Make them a wreck? I don't see how that really is any of our concern, to use a cliché. Whilst all efforts must be made to assist people in fulfilling the choice of getting off drugs, criticising someone else's activities because you disapprove of the personal results is rather bad form..

I already have mates with maxed overdrafts thanks to Cocaine, etc. Im 18. None of them are 20 yet. Sure, thats their choice. Yay for personal choice. Hey guys, we're all broke because we're naturally curious, got hooked on drugs because they're so easy to get, but thats ok, because we all made the choice to do it! Yay!

Quote:

I take it you haven't read any of the discussions on personal choice, then.

On the contrary, ive been the main voice of the Authoritarian minority on this boards for some time. Also i dont think cryptic statements like that help, jak. Not bothering to explain yourself at all condescendingly is a symptom of Sundayism.

Phang · 26 Jul 2004, 20:06

a question for dante and all other libertarian chappies.

would you rather this were introduced, or heavy penalties remained? (for coke/heroin obviously)?

it's prevention vs punishment. and lets face it, heroin, cocaine and nicotine dont represent dull old personal choices, they represent 'really ****ing bad' personal choices. And they aren't one-off decisions either. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the methodone clinics, plenty of lung cancer patients, who really ****ing wish they could have been vaccinated before they did this to themselves.

I've decided what I think of this. It's a good idea. If it affected all drugs and harmful substances, I'd think twice, but this doesn't. It just stops people ****ing themselves over before they spend their life regretting it afterwards.

JonnyBGood · 26 Jul 2004, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Maybe one random guy doing a line, injecting himself and passing out in a corner doesnt. One guy late at night on the street, begging for money unsuccessfully for his next hit, then turning to violence on an innocent passer by, does.

This only really shows that violence against passers by is wrong as there is no direct link that can't be avoided.

Quote:

Come on Jonny. You live in Dublin yeah? Thats not so different from Glasgow. You've never been chased by a Junkie? Threatened by a knife? Beaten up for the sake of the change of a tenner? Please dont try and tell me peoples drug usage doesnt affect anyone else, because its simply not true.

I've been mugged. Looking at who mugged me I don't think they were serious drug users (I didn't see any of the signs).

Quote:

Im not against Public Heathcare. Im against Public Healthcare extending to drug users or smokers. If you smoke, i think you should have to register yourself as a smoker and either get private healthcare, or pay more to the NHS. If you do drugs, i dont see why you should be entitled to an emergency bed. Choices? Cool, have your choices. The concequences arent nearly great enough yet, because they arent acting as deterrants.

You seem to be heading towards private medical care there. You hardly think smokers will support your public healthcare schemes if they have no access to them?

Nodrog · 26 Jul 2004, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

would you rather this were introduced, or heavy penalties remained? (for coke/heroin obviously)?
.

neither?

Would you rather homosexuals were burnt at the stake, or simply fined if they were caught?

Dante Hicks · 26 Jul 2004, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Please dont try and tell me peoples drug usage doesnt affect anyone else, because its simply not true.

These arguments could be applied to drinking too Deffeh. You never been threatened by a drunk? Never seen a drunk beggar? etc.

Quote:

Im not against Public Heathcare. Im against Public Healthcare extending to drug users or smokers.

This seems fine by me. Let me **** up my life if I wish. Just give me the choice.

Phang : I support the total legalisation of all drugs. Your choice is no choice at all. And don't give me the crap about cocaine being some sort of uber-drug. It's not. After taking it a few times I didn't quit my job the next day and become a raving psycho. I had a couple of good night(s) and felt a bit bad in the morning. Most of the people I know (now I think about it) have done coke. And none of them have been negatively effected by the experience. They just think coke is a crap drug compared to the alternatives.

As I've said, I've not taken Heroin but if it follows the trend of every other drug ever I expect the dangers to be similarly overhyped.

Phang · 26 Jul 2004, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

neither?

Would you rather homosexuals were burnt at the stake, or simply fined if they were caught?

well, if the current system consisted of burnings, i'd probably be happy if the penalty was reduced to a fine

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

And anyway? Where are you going with this? Parents only have obligation till your 12? Your point makes no sense, because presumably 12 or 13 would be the first time you'd consider using these preventative measures anyway.

12 was a completely arbitrary number, sorry for not making that clear.

The point was that, to a degree, parents should restrict the rights of the young, simply because the young generally haven't grasped the whole 'responsibility for your actions' thang.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I already have mates with maxed overdrafts thanks to Cocaine, etc. Im 18. None of them are 20 yet. Sure, thats their choice. Yay for personal choice. Hey guys, we're all broke because we're naturally curious, got hooked on drugs because they're so easy to get, but thats ok, because we all made the choice to do it! Yay!

Fortunately, in my new world order, there is a large area of free healthcare devoted to the voluntary removal of drug addiction. In addition, with the legality of these drugs, research may at last begin in earnest on the positive and negative effects of the substances, and medical advances be made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

On the contrary, ive been the main voice of the Authoritarian minority on this boards for some time. Also i dont think cryptic statements like that help, jak. Not bothering to explain yourself at all condescendingly is a symptom of Sundayism.

The generally agreed stance on 'personal choice' by the group of GD lefties, hereafter referred to as 'GDL', is that the rights of the individual are supreme, in so far as the utilisation of the right doesn't disproportionately decrease another's freedom of choice or rights of the individual of another, nonconsenting, personage.

LHC · 26 Jul 2004, 20:16

Couldn't these be dangerous anyway? Would it stop the drugs being dangerous too? If not, it might just increase the number of people overdosing, in an attempt to get a serious hit.

Nodrog · 26 Jul 2004, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

well, if the current system consisted of burnings, i'd probably be happy if the penalty was reduced to a fine

Hopefully this won't be an issue because I assume we'll find a cure for homosexuality soon anyway, which can be given to children who exhibit disturbing signs of behavior.

Deffeh · 26 Jul 2004, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

None of us are addicted to heroin as far as I know. That was your point as far as I can see : "Hey, we need this - it'll help your kids not be smack heads!". I'm not worried about my kids become smack kids. Hell, I wouldn't worry unless I was the worst parent in the world. Cigarettes is another matter, but that's not so bad (in the scheme of things). Plenty of people I know are addicted to nicotine without ruining their lives or anyone elses. Just to simplify I'll say : Taking drugs is not bad. You can go too far (obviously) as you can with a wide range of activities (e.g. gambling - which I've found a lot more destructive).

Obviously if after they (my hypothetical kids) hit 18 (or whatever age we're choosing) they choose to take heroin regularly that's their business.

I'm sure the majority of people who take heroin are doing it for relief. What's the difference exactly?

I doubt many crimes are comitted under the influence of ecstacy. But anyway, do you think it's the drugs that make these people shit? Do you think if you could somehow get rid of Coke and E you wouldn't have little ****ers running round the streets being shit? I doubt it somehow.

No, the little ****ers would still be there, and still be shit. But on drugs, their judgement is clouded. Coke and E make you arrogant.

Now i know the counter argument to that is simple : People are arrogant and their judgement is clouded on Alcohol, and i accept this. But alcohol is always going to be abused. Drunks are difficult to deal with, yeah. But i find junkies more dangerous to deal with, because they need more money for their fix than a drunk does. After all, a drunk only needs to beg for an hour or so to get a couple of quid for a pint. Its a bit more difficult if your after a line of coke.

But this all is pointless banter. Its not my main point.

I conceded long ago anything obsessive and compulsively can be dangerous, you dont need to give me the gambling, alcohol, fatty foods, etc etc etc thing, i take that point.

I wouldnt be happy knowing my kids were out doing Heroin, regardless what age they were. Do you feel absolved of guilt after theyre 18? Wouldnt you care if they died of an OD? If you were still popping pills, would you share a nice pint and an eccie with your 19 year old daughter before she goes off to a club?

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 20:28

You can disapprove, but that shouldn't affect your ability to recognise their right to do a thing. See: Voltaire.

Phang · 26 Jul 2004, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Hopefully this won't be an issue because I assume we'll find a cure for homosexuality soon anyway, which can be given to children who exhibit disturbing signs of behavior.

if this is some form of parallel please tell me because currently it looks like tangent as a substitute for argument

StaticX · 26 Jul 2004, 20:32

Im not against Public Heathcare. Im against Public Healthcare extending to drug users or smokers. If you smoke, i think you should have to register yourself as a smoker and either get private healthcare, or pay more to the NHS. If you do drugs, i dont see why you should be entitled to an emergency bed. Choices? Cool, have your choices. The concequences arent nearly great enough yet, because they arent acting as deterrants.[/quote]

What about reahbilitation? What about those who want to quit but cannot afford the private healthcare? Do we just leave them on the streets mugging people?

In reply to the vaccine part, wouldn't this simply push up prices as drugs will have to be purer and in larger quantities? Immunising people from the effects of drugs doesn't remove the underlying social, economic, personal reasons which are the cause for drug abuse, so this may lead to other avenues such as incread alcoholism, increased violence towards people and property, increased suicide rates etc..... Harder drugs will also be developed, espcially if they remain illegal.

Sunday8pm · 26 Jul 2004, 20:35

Petition to stop jonnybgood posting as jonny8pm.

StaticX · 26 Jul 2004, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

But alcohol is always going to be abused. Drunks are difficult to deal with, yeah. But i find junkies more dangerous to deal with, because they need more money for their fix than a drunk does.

Wouldn't this be an argument for legalisation of drugs? If drugs cost less then the cost would drop dramatically.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

if this is some form of parallel please tell me because currently it looks like tangent as a substitute for argument

You're reading too much into Nod's initial statement. He was saying that you were establishing a false choice, and made the homosexual example to show this. Obviously the preferable situation is neither, rather than either; you misinterpreted this, and nod's examples were too similar to hold up under that interpretation.

His second post was just a funny.

Phang · 26 Jul 2004, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You're reading too much into Nod's initial statement. He was saying that you were establishing a false choice, and made the homosexual example to show this. Obviously the preferable situation is neither, rather than either; you misinterpreted this, and nod's examples were too similar to hold up under that interpretation.

His second post was just a funny.

i knew what he meant the first time, i was pointing out that the vaccine is preferable to the current criminal status. If legalisation is not an option, which lets face it it isnt, surely this is preferable

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 26 Jul 2004, 20:44

someone mentioned on another forum that varients of some drugs (heroin/diamorphine) are used as painkillers (diamorphine in pregnancy). so presumambly 'immunising' against heroin will make these painkillers useless...

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

i knew what he meant the first time, i was pointing out that the vaccine is preferable to the current criminal status. If legalisation is not an option, which lets face it it isnt, surely this is preferable

What are you exactly saying here? Surely the options are 'Vaccine' and 'Not vaccine'?

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2004, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

someone mentioned on another forum that varients of some drugs (heroin/diamorphine) are used as painkillers (diamorphine in pregnancy). so presumambly 'immunising' against heroin will make these painkillers useless...

Morphine is great stuff.

And the painkilling effects may be different from the other effects in vector.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 26 Jul 2004, 20:46

anyways, who the ****ing hell do you think you are telling me i cant take drugs if i want/wont get the effects from them anymore!

etc.

JonnyBGood · 26 Jul 2004, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Petition to stop jonnybgood posting as jonny8pm.

This is all fairly irrelevant as I'm going to get my revenge on my parents for stopping me enjoying drugs by categorising them as mentally incapable and sticking them in an old folk's home where they get ignored and slowly waste away in their filth thinking of how their ****ing lives ended up like this. Serves civilisation right for being so shit.

Phang · 26 Jul 2004, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What are you exactly saying here? Surely the options are 'Vaccine' and 'Not vaccine'?

the way i see it, it's

no restrictions
illegal
vaccine

through the eyes of a libertarian, the vaccine doesnt seem good but preferable to ACTUALLY PUNISHING PEOPLE based on decisions of personal choice

Sunday8pm · 26 Jul 2004, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is all fairly irrelevant as I'm going to get my revenge on my parents for stopping me enjoying drugs by categorising them as mentally incapable and sticking them in an old folk's home where they get ignored and slowly waste away in their filth thinking of how their ****ing lives ended up like this. Serves civilisation right for being so shit.

mmmmm if I was a spite vampire you'd be a 5 course feast.

JC · 26 Jul 2004, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

someone mentioned on another forum that varients of some drugs (heroin/diamorphine) are used as painkillers (diamorphine in pregnancy). so presumambly 'immunising' against heroin will make these painkillers useless...

No. The antibodies raised against heroin would be specific to heroin.

Deffeh · 26 Jul 2004, 20:57

Yet again, another good thread has lost all trace, and focus. Im aware its my turn to respond, but im not sure to what now, nor how we got there.

On the plus side, Nodrog can never ever accuse MrL of derailing a thread by going off topic ever again

Nodrog · 26 Jul 2004, 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

through the eyes of a libertarian, the vaccine doesnt seem good but preferable to ACTUALLY PUNISHING PEOPLE based on decisions of personal choice

No it really isnt, unless you're working off an unbelievably shallow conception of 'freedom'.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 26 Jul 2004, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

No. The antibodies raised against heroin would be specific to heroin.

oh, well i was under the impression that heroin was essentially the same as diamorphine.

Ste · 26 Jul 2004, 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaticX

In reply to the vaccine part, wouldn't this simply push up prices as drugs will have to be purer and in larger quantities? Immunising people from the effects of drugs doesn't remove the underlying social, economic, personal reasons which are the cause for drug abuse, so this may lead to other avenues such as incread alcoholism, increased violence towards people and property, increased suicide rates etc..... Harder drugs will also be developed, espcially if they remain illegal.

I agree.
The whole "Drugs are bad mmkay" argument fails to accept that there are reasons people do drugs and will always do drugs.

Dante Hicks · 26 Jul 2004, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No it really isnt, unless you're working off an unbelievably shallow conception of 'freedom'.

Indeed. Under the current system I can make a decision to take heroin and run the risk of being put in prison (which sucks, but at least it's still a choice I can make). Under a system of vaccination I wouldn't even be able to make this choice. I don't see how any "libertarian" could openly advocate a system which reduces freedoms for those involved.

Blixxard · 27 Jul 2004, 01:12

Quote:

Ministers consider vaccination scheme. Heroin, cocaine and nicotine targeted

Oh dear. This won't happen under Labour. Not saying it's a bad idea but it will fall through and nothing will be done.
They have already relaxed the laws on drugs.....so why are they considering vaccinating people.
In england is depends on what county you live in. I know in my area if your caught taking drugs you get a warning (over 18). As long as your not near a school - which is more punishable. If your under 16 you gey arrested then police can search your room.
I should be more specific as i think the local law only comes under cocaine and other certain drugs.

It's a good idea, but I cannot see how it's going to happen anytime in the next 5-10 years.

Tactitus · 27 Jul 2004, 01:54

As a parent, I fully endorse the concept of innoculating your children against all the evils in life. However, I believe it's futile to think you can do it with a syringe. There are new (illicit) drugs becoming available all the time. Widespread vaccination against today's popular drugs will only spur the introduction of different drugs tomorrow. And this doesn't even begin to cover the other insidious pitfalls in life: compulsive gambling, crime, mental illness, internet forums, etc.

I think the best--and ultimately only--practical thing you can do as a parent is to teach your children that their lives are worth living, that they have some control over what they get out of their lives and that when life dumps on them (as it will) they have pick up the pieces and get on with it.

Radical Edward · 27 Jul 2004, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

'freedom'.

lol

Radical Edward · 27 Jul 2004, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Under a system of vaccination I wouldn't even be able to make this choice.

I don't see how this vaccination would stop you from being about to make that choice - you could still take heroin and wind up in prison if you liked.

Dante Hicks · 27 Jul 2004, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I don't see how this vaccination would stop you from being about to make that choice - you could still take heroin and wind up in prison if you liked.

I wouldn't be able to experience the pleasure to be derived from it, obviously. It's essentially denying the individual that choice. Obivously they could still do it for bloody mindedness sake.

Imagine a serum could be administered to children at birth which meant they wouldn't find black people attractive (I realise this is far-fetched). White supremacists (fearing the corruption of their children) would presumably jump at the chance. Now, one reasonable counter-argument against such a hypothetical serum would be "You are removing the choice from the individual - what if they wanted to marry a black person one day, etc, etc". But obviously they still could, but obviously they wouldn't.

Radical Edward · 27 Jul 2004, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I wouldn't be able to experience the pleasure to be derived from it, obviously. It's essentially denying the individual that choice. Obivously they could still do it for bloody mindedness sake.

Imagine a serum could be administered to children at birth which meant they wouldn't find black people attractive (I realise this is far-fetched). White supremacists (fearing the corruption of their children) would presumably jump at the chance. Now, one reasonable counter-argument against such a hypothetical serum would be "You are removing the choice from the individual - what if they wanted to marry a black person one day, etc, etc". But obviously they still could, but obviously they wouldn't.

same goes for measles, perhaps I want to catch measles, but I can't now - I don't see the difference personally.

Dante Hicks · 27 Jul 2004, 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

same goes for measles, perhaps I want to catch measles, but I can't now - I don't see the difference personally.

Well a fair number of people deliberately take heroin on purpose to derive pleasure from it (here and so on). Are there many (or any) cases of people wanting to infect themselves with measles?

If there is a reasonable chance that this could happen then yes I agree measles shots should be stopped.