The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Azazel
You're kidding, right? A person can get any drug with fair ease. Legalizing it will not lead to an increase in the amount of rapes.
I wouldn't say any person. Surely outlawing it will deter the causal offenders?
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Originally posted by Azazel
Also, as you see, a substance that transforms into GHB is freely available on the market.
So you are going to dump cleaning products into somebody's drinks?
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
You are still being disingenuous, Berz. Just because drug A can be used to do one thing, and drug B can also do the same thing, doesn't mean they should be treated the same way.
UR, I just explained why your first accusation is false (you didn't even read the quote correctly) and you've ignored that explanation and added another accusation. I may or may not be drawing a logical analogy, but that doesn't mean I'm being dis-ingenuous. The argument put forward was that GHB should be illegal because it can be used to commit rape, that's true for all sorts of things - from the drugs used in operations to weapons. So, why aren't the people on your side applying that principle to everything that can be used to facilitate rape? Seems like a rational question that goes to the heart of their position, nothing dis-ingenuous about it.
snotty -
No, but if it would be much easier for a potential rapist to buy the stuff if it was legal. GHB is more difficult to get hold because it is illegal.
Then what do you mean by "no"? Does that mean you believe people who don't rape (I imagine some women use this drug of their own will) should not be punished for using the drug?
If any ******* could walk into a store and buy this stuff it would lead to more rapes. Im sure you can see the link. It would also lead to more happy GHB users, but thats not worth the increased number of rapes.
So you do believe non-rapists should be punished because of rapists? Okay, ban alcohol? I mean, it's not worth all the violence (domestic abuse) just so some people can get buzzed, right? That seems to be your standard. Btw, it takes a certain mentality to commit rape, so how does banning the drug reduce the number of people with this mentality, i.e., the number of rapes? Have rape rates dramatically increased with the invention of this drug?
The reverse of your arguement is should women be punished (raped) just because people want to use GHB legally?
The people who use GHB and don't commit rape aren't punishing anyone, the rapists are. But you advocate punishing both groups because of the latter, so you have more in common with the rapists than the GHB users who don't rape women. Should people be punished for using alcohol because some alcohol users hurt others? Are alcohol users punishing the victims of alcohol-related domestic violence?
I dont mean to get on your case berz, Im all for legalization. Just not this one. Theres too many dicks in the world for this to be easily available.
Well then, castrate men. After all, according to your logic, men with dicks are punishing women because of men who rape women.
Ok, I'll give you that. The determined rapist will no doubt be able to lay his hands on date rape drugs. The problem is the 'casual' rapist, if there is such a thing. The guys who would think its ok to put a legal drug in a girls to drink to help her 'relax' etc.
The determined rapist doesn't need any drug.
Japher -
The drug could be used as any other anistesia, but unfortuantly the type of places that have this stuff (Vets, Hospitals, Doctors, Dentists, etc) have a high rate of crime associated with them for the expressed purpose of obtaining these drugs.
That's the nature of prohibition, ban a desired drug and you increase crime.
If the only way to keep the drug off the street is to ban it, then ban it.
But you've just pointed out how banning it doesn't get it off the street.
There are other drugs that can be administered to receive the same effect. Unfortunately for the bad guys, they aren't as easy to conceal and administer unnoticed.
Unfortunately for the people who don't commit rape too, because it seems you want them punished because of the rapists.
HOw is it different than a knife? A knife has multiple uses and besides, any one can make a knife, shiv, or other knife like item that banning them would serve no pupose. Also note that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, and most bars won't let you end if you are carrying a knife.
GHB has other uses too, but since banning knives won't work because people can make knives, how does banning GHB work when that apparently can be made without much difficulty? I suppose the next logical step is banning the ingredients so more people are punished because of rapists.
Trip -
If there are other anesthetics that work perfectly fine why legalize one that has such a horrible side effect?
What horrible side-effect? Are you now blaming the drug for what people do?
You seem to think that people are responsible enough that if something has one "positive" use then it should be perfectly fine to legalize, despite the other ramifications which may ensue.
I seem to think it is immoral to punish the innocent because of the guilty, so taking such an extraordinary measure requires immense justification. Punish people who commit rape, not people who don't.
Should we allow monopolies in the economy because some monpolies are good? Or should we penalize the possible good monopolies because more end up being bad?
Yes and no, do you support public schools? If so, drop that argument asap. Let consumers decide, it's called freedom.
Or how about automatic weapons.
Sure, they should be legal too.
I'd sleep better at night with GHB illegal and knowing that a few rapes were prevented than if it were legal knowing some guys got a good high instead.
You sleep better knowing the innocent are being punished because of your mis-placed desire to punish the guilty? How do you know fewer rapes occured?
You make it sound like some moral crusade or something... oh no, people can't get high, woe!
Better to be on a moral crusade than immoral one. It's about freedom, if you claim the moral authority to dictate everyone else's state of mind, then don't complain when others decide they have the moral authority to run your life.
Tell me again... why exactly are you arguing for the legality of something you know near nothing about? As long as it gets people high, right
You really should focus your energies on making change important to your own life; and regarding things you know about. Not blindly defending something with ill proportioned moral equations just because it's a ****ing drug
Originally posted by Berzerker
The determined rapist doesn't need any drug.
What about the opportunist rapist. The one that realise he can acquire the drug freely, administer it freely and then rape freely. The first two opportunites could arise at any party without pre-emptive thought, if it is legal the chance are greatly increased. It then boils down to temptation, not determination, to commit rape.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Tell me again... why exactly are you arguing for the legality of something you know near nothing about? As long as it gets people high, right
All I need to know is that people use this drug without raping others and that they should not be punished because other people use the drug to facilitate rape.
You really should focus your energies on making change important to your own life; and regarding things you know about. Not blindly defending something with ill proportioned moral equations just because it's a ****ing drug
Slavery wouldn't have been important to my life either, that doesn't mean I should keep quiet about it. And opposing your desire to punish the innocent becaue of the guilty is not an "ill-proportioned moral equation" and you'd understand that if you were jailed because I raped someone.
What about the opportunist rapist. The one that realise he can acquire the drug freely, administer it freely and then rape freely. The first two opportunites could arise at any party without pre-emptive thought, if it is legal the chance are greatly increased. It then boils down to temptation, not determination, to commit rape.
How does an "opportunity" rapist slip GHB into a woman's drink without pre-emptive thought? You're still arguing that people who don't have this temptation should be punished because of those who do and act upon it.
All I need to know is that people use this drug without raping others and that they should not be punished because other people use the drug to facilitate rape.
That's great.
Slavery wouldn't have been important to my life either, that doesn't mean I should keep quiet about it.
I would have been fine with your arguments on slavery, as long as you had some relative baring or knowledge on the subject - which you apprently don't here.
And opposing your desire to punish the innocent becaue of the guilty is not an "ill-proportioned moral equation" and you'd understand that if you were jailed because I raped someone.
Again, an equation that has no relation to what is argued by society in banning this substance. In case you haven't noticed; there's a preventitive basis here that makes the situation just a little different from up and throwing anyone in jail because someone else committed rape. I'll explain the societal abstract to you, but you have to promise not to go tangent wild on "the hypocricy of legalized alcohol" - seeing as how we're talking about an entirely different substance with its own extreme scale of threats. Does that make sense? I didn't think so.
In any case, what you time and again fail to realize is that people are being "punished" with the scheduling of this incredibly dangerous substance because society CAN NOT arbitrarily predict who the rapists will be! Society therefore refuses to make it available to the vast population because it will then fall into the hands of the aforementioned rapists at increased availibility, as well as offering a new simplicity in method at that increased availability. The culture and knowledge of such tactics spread with it's commercial availability, and now even your High School sophomore who always veered away from the notion of violent rape can become a rapist without breaking this code! Just think, rather than the time and again and comparitively unsuccessful "get em hammered" tactic - here's a near %100 sure method with the risk factor of being caught diminished substantially!
Due to the extreme certainty of such a scenario (I've seen microcosms of it happen even with strict scheduling, so don't argue it simply "won't" with widespread commercialization and cultural acceptance) - the bulk of us have to bite the bullet and accept it as illegal; and we are subsequently punished for breaking that code. There's no "awe but I'm not a rapist" out in this situation, especially when that can't be proven until it happens. Furthermore - that can't even be proven WHEN IT HAPPENS, increasingly in this scenario. Therefore rather than letting "obvious non rapists" off the hook for having it, and thereby letting its availibility and subsequent societal ills grow (substantially). We skip all the flak, the poor masses have to do without just one other high for its severe dangers - and life goes on. What a concept
How does an "opportunity" rapist slip GHB into a woman's drink without pre-emptive thought? You're still arguing that people who don't have this temptation should be punished because of those who do and act upon it.
No, you're the only one who's arguing that people are being punished for the actions of others - and repeatedly banging it over your own head as if everyone else should just accept this equation because you say it's right. Yeah. We're denying people a substance because others are raping. It has nothing to do with enforcing a system which controls the availibility of something that would turn rape into a whole new, much bigger ballgame.
You don't know about the drug that you're defending, you don't know and haven't seen which circumstances warrant it's labeling as a dangerous substance to prevent further danger by such means. It’s quite apparent that at this point you’re simply “debating” out of your ass with whatever mix and match comparison you can convince yourself of. You came into the discussion only with the knowledge of “people can get high off it” and the subsequent conviction that “no matter how dangerous it is, no matter what societal ill it promotes and further enables – it shouldn’t be withheld; because it’s a drug, and some people enjoy it”
Ugh.. it's gonna be the same ol rivalries on the battlefield come Friday, hmm?
Originally posted by Big Crunch
What about the opportunist rapist. The one that realise he can acquire the drug freely, administer it freely and then rape freely. The first two opportunites could arise at any party without pre-emptive thought, if it is legal the chance are greatly increased. It then boils down to temptation, not determination, to commit rape.
1. You can't imagine how many available drugs, a rapist can use. + A lot of medication, when diluted into alcohol, will make the victim pass out real fast.
2. Your argumentation sux. It's like saying we should ban fast cars because some badass killed 2 grandmothers when he drived at 200km/h in a town. Stupid.
3. Actually, making a drug illegal doesn't remove it from the market. It just makes it harder to find, and more expensive (which means, more criminality). Wake up! I can find you 2 liters of GHB before 5 pm.
4. When a drug's legal, there's some control over it: who bought it, when, where,...
As I said before, it's just to please the public opinion. People think that it doesn't exist anymore, when it's just hidden.
I would have been fine with your arguments on slavery, as long as you had some relative baring or knowledge on the subject - which you apprently don't here.
And yet you have failed to show anything I've said wrt GHB is false, so you conviently assume I'm ignorant then use your assumption to argue I shouldn't express an opinion. Hmm... do you get from all that spinning? If all I knew about slavery was that one person "owned" another, would I need to know other aspects of the relationship to know slavery is immoral?
Again, an equation that has no relation to what is argued by society in banning this substance.
The innocent are being punished because of the guilty, that is the moral equation being proposed in this thread. And "society" doesn't argue, people argue and obviously people disagree.
In case you haven't noticed; there's a preventitive basis here that makes the situation just a little different from up and throwing anyone in jail because someone else committed rape.
And your position is that the innocent should be thrown in jail to "prevent" rapes regardless of whether or not the people you've thrown in jail are rapists. We have a principle here called "innocent until proven guilty", or at least we did, but that has gone out the window with the rest of the Constitution. So how would you like it if you were thrown in jail because I committed rape? I see you dodged that one...
I'll explain the societal abstract to you, but you have to promise not to go tangent wild on "the hypocricy of legalized alcohol" - seeing as how we're talking about an entirely different substance with its own extreme scale of threats. Does that make sense? I didn't think so.
It is hypocrisy, does that make sense? I didn't think so...
In any case, what you time and again fail to realize is that people are being "punished" with the scheduling of this incredibly dangerous substance because society CAN NOT arbitrarily predict who the rapists will be!
The drug (incredibly dangerous ) does not make someone a rapist, so jailing people who use the drug based on rape is still punishing the innocent because of the guilty. Now, would you advocate jailing men because we cannot predict which men will commit rape? Of course not! Why? "Utility" or morality? I guess you'd have to argue utility since morality doesn't appear relevant to your side, but you know very well y'all would think it was immoral if you were imprisoned because other people commit crimes.
Society therefore refuses to make it available to the vast population because it will then fall into the hands of the aforementioned rapists at increased availibility, as well as offering a new simplicity in method at that increased availability.
Zylka, we already know the rationale put forth by your side, I'm just pointing out the immorality of punishing the innocent because of the guilty and that keeps going right over the heads of people on your side.
The culture and knowledge of such tactics spread with it's commercial availability, and now even your High School sophomore who always veered away from the notion of violent rape can become a rapist without breaking this code!
Without breaking what code? If all this was true, rape rates should be going thru the roof since inspite of government's efforts, this drug is still available enough for would-be rapists to get. So, the burden of proof is on your side - show us that rape rates have skyrocketed because of this drug. Hell, you guys haven't even bothered showing a ban is "needed" from a utilitarian viewpoint...
Just think, rather than the time and again and comparitively unsuccessful "get em hammered" tactic - here's a near %100 sure method with the risk factor of being caught diminished substantially!
Do you have proof that getting caught has been diminished substantially? What's that drug some rapists use to KO their victims? A liquid put on a cloth and put over the mouth? That's a near %100 sure method too, so what?
Due to the extreme certainty of such a scenario (I've seen microcosms of it happen even with strict scheduling, so don't argue it simply "won't" with widespread commercialization and cultural acceptance) - the bulk of us have to bite the bullet and accept it as illegal; and we are subsequently punished for breaking that code.
So the code is: we punish the innocent because of the guilty. Why do you guys keep gagging on that bullet?
There's no "awe but I'm not a rapist" out in this situation, especially when that can't be proven until it happens.
Well gee, punish everyone based on what might happen. You own a gun? Well, we can't wait until you shoot someone, sorry, off to jail for you.
Furthermore - that can't even be proven WHEN IT HAPPENS, increasingly in this scenario.
Do you have proof for that too?
Therefore rather than letting "obvious non rapists" off the hook for having it, and thereby letting its availibility and subsequent societal ills grow (substantially). We skip all the flak, the poor masses have to do without just one other high for its severe dangers - and life goes on. What a concept
Oh, but it doesn't stop there. You see, alcohol causes all sorts of societal ills, so there's a group out there wanting it banned. Then there's the gun grabbers. And of course we already have numerous drugs banned based on the "what if" argument, you know, "prevention". But your side can't avoid the charge of hypocrisy when you oppose all these other people because they're just throwing your argument right back at you. Btw, "obvious non rapists"?
No, you're the only one who's arguing that people are being punished for the actions of others - and repeatedly banging it over your own head as if everyone else should just accept this equation because you say it's right.
That is the reality. Punishing people for using GHB because some people are rapists is immoral...
We're denying people a substance because others are raping.
People who are innocent of rape, and you aren't "denying" people this drug, you're punishing them for having it. If all you guys did was confiscate the drug, then you'd be denying them the drug and your actions would be far less immoral.
It has nothing to do with enforcing a system which controls the availibility of something that would turn rape into a whole new, much bigger ballgame.
That's the motive, I'm stating the obviously immoral consequence. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
You don't know about the drug that you're defending, you don't know and haven't seen which circumstances warrant it's labeling as a dangerous substance to prevent further danger by such means.
All I've seen in this thread is that some people use it to facilitate rape. That's essentially the same argument used by people who want to ban guns.
It’s quite apparent that at this point you’re simply “debating” out of your ass with whatever mix and match comparison you can convince yourself of. You came into the discussion only with the knowledge of “people can get high off it” and the subsequent conviction that “no matter how dangerous it is, no matter what societal ill it promotes and further enables – it shouldn’t be withheld; because it’s a drug, and some people enjoy it”
If some people enjoy it, that's their business, not yours. If you enjoy alcohol, that's your business, not mine. Does the fact many people who use alcohol become violent and hurt others mean your use of alcohol becomes "my business"? Of course not. These "societal ills" are always cited by people on your side wrt drugs, so why do y'all ignore that argument when the societal ills caused by your attempts to ban drugs are exposed?
You know, on second thought, you're right Zylka. We have to prevent people from getting this dastardly drug! And if they get it, we'll just have to put 'em in jail! But I don't have the money to hire people to do all this, do you? No? Okay, no problem, let's steal the money from these people who want GHB. Yeah, that's the ticket! There's irony for ya, huh? We'll steal the money to jail these people from them.
Oops, they don't have enough to support our cause either. Okay, we'll just have to steal from other people too, whatever it takes! But people don't like us stealing their money? No problem, we'll call it "taxes" and explain how they have a patriotic duty to let us steal their money. After all, jailing maybe one hundred thousand people to make it more difficult for maybe 100 people to commit rape is certainly moral, true?
But when our efforts create a black market and crime increases, we'll turn our heads and ignore the results of our meddling. God forbid anyone figure out our crusade has negative consequences, we can't have dissension in the ranks. Maybe we should jail people who speak out against us... What do you think? We'll call it "The Patriot Act", that should inform the ignorant we have only their best interests at heart as we deprive everyone of their freedom. After all, mankind needs our wisdom and compassion because people need leaders and direction in their lives...
Berzerker's argument seems valid to me - punishing people for possessing a drug (which is a crime, but not inherently immoral) for the behaviour of others runs against an individualistic code of morals.
On the other hand, illegalising the drug should decrease its availability[1], making its immoral[2] use less prevalent. Illegalising it, from a utilitarian standpoint, may be moral because the decrease in immoral[2] use of the drug outweighs the injustice of punished innocent users. Note, I said 'may' - it's difficult to determine the net effect without running a controlled experiment involving a number of cities.
Such an experiment would also help to measure peripheral effects, like unrelated criminal activity based on trading in the drug.
In this particular case, there may be a compromise between the two positions. Someone mentioned earlier that commercially available Rohypnol is mixed with other substances to make its presence obvious in a drink. Couldn't the same thing be done with GHB?
Of course, this leaves recreational use unaddressed. Personally, I'm of the opinion that individualistic and utilitarian morals aren't as contrary as most people think on the issue of recreational drug use. If such drugs are freely available, people particularly susceptible to addiction will be partially isolated from society, reducing the chance of their genes or memes[3] being passed on. Eventually, society should end up more resistant to addictions in general. If anyone would like to offer me mayor-for-lifeship of two cities with a population of a million or so, I'd gladly set up an experiment to test this.
[1] It may not decrease it to zero, but it should decrease it. If anyone can make a convincing case that the legality of the drug increases its availability, or has absolutely no effect, I'll be impressed.
[2] By either of the moral standards considered here.
[3] More likely to be the latter, since we're only talking about a couple of generations.
[SIZE=1]
On the other hand, illegalising the drug should decrease its availability[1], making its immoral[2] use less prevalent. Illegalising it, from a utilitarian standpoint, may be moral because the decrease in immoral[2] use of the drug outweighs the injustice of punished innocent users. Note, I said 'may' - it's difficult to determine the net effect without running a controlled experiment involving a number of cities.
[1] It may not decrease it to zero, but it should decrease it. If anyone can make a convincing case that the legality of the drug increases its availability, or has absolutely no effect, I'll be impressed.
"Opiate seizures represent some 8 to 15% of the estimated world production. In 1997, this interception rate was about 14%, with the South-West Asian and Near and Middle East regions together accounting for 60% of global seizure volume of opium, morphine and heroin, followed by Europe (16%) and East/South-East Asia (13%).
"The remaining 86% (amounting to more than 400 tonnes of heroin) of the 1997 world production is assumed to have been potentially available to global illicit markets."
One of the major problems with supply reduction efforts (source control, interdiction, and domestic enforcement) is that "suppliers simply produce for the market what they would have produced anyway, plus enough extra to cover anticipated government seizures."
------
The Netherlands follows a policy of separating the market for illicit drugs. Cannabis is primarily purchased through coffee shops. Coffee shops offer no or few possibilities for purchasing illicit drugs other than cannabis. Thus The Netherlands achieve a separation of the soft drug market from the hard drugs market - and separation of the 'acceptable risk' drug user from the 'unacceptable risk' drug user.
"There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%."
After all, according to your logic, men with dicks are punishing women because of men who rape women.
from all that spinning? If all I knew about slavery was that one person "owned" another, would I need to know other aspects of the relationship to know slavery is immoral?
Tweet
Comment