70-75% of all Crime is Committed by "Addicts"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drago Sinio Further you are also foolish to harm yourself, your business or your professional career with drug abuse. Just think of what you could do with the money and time you waste alone!! I can only hope you modify your foolish behaviour before you do any permanent damage.

According to whom am I doing myself harm? You? The government? I'm wasting time and money having fun? Guess I should stop going to the movies or buying cds, since I'm only wasting time and money enjoying myself.

You are self-righteous, inaccurate, and you don't even get your own story straight. Yes, you do say abuse in your post that I quoted from, but you also say taking drugs.

BTW, taking drugs is not illegal. Having them is, but I don't have any. Distributing them is, but I don't distribute. But those are BS crimes anyways, and shouldn't be illegal.

[Bosh]

"First let me say that I am defining immoral as "causing harm to yourself or others""
Which is quite a ridiculous definition. To paraphrase a sig quote (Heinlein I believe) that I had a while back, the only sin is hurting other people, hurting yourself is just stupid.

"Yes, actually, since taking illegal drugs is by definition a petty crime, you are exactly that sort of fool."
So you're saying that people who use drugs are the sort of fools who commit petty crimes and then you back that up by saying that using drugs is a petty crime. Isn't that just a bit circular.

Also it should be pointed out that correlation does not mean causality. If people who use drugs committ more crimes it does not follow that drugs cause crime, its more probable that people who would committ crimes in any case are more likely to use drugs or that drugs/crime are merely symptoms of more deeply-rooted problems.

But what it comes down is its fairly ridiculous to punish people for what they do, if said actions don't hurt anyone else. If you're afraid that using drugs will lead to other actions, then punish those actions, rather than punishing people for what they might do sometime in the future, which is just as ridiculous for fining everyone who owns a fast car for speeding violations. If you're afraid that drugs users will hurt themselves, then that's none of your business really. If it really hurts people so much, isn't that punishment enough? This kind makes no more sense than locking people up for dropping cinderblocks on their feets (or whatnot).

And being afraid of any adverse affects of pot if really quite ridiculous, as its really pretty harmless (especially compared to alcohol). Hell, I've smoked pot four times and tried my best to get high and failed miserably all four times

[Drago Sinio]

According to whom am I doing myself harm?

According to me. Of course it is a matter of degree. You can harm yourself a tiny bit, or a great deal. That is entirely up to you.

My opinion is that the businessmen and professionals you speak of cannot possibly take drugs regularly, over a long period of time, without doing harm. Would you want to be treated by a Doctor whose brain has been dulled by narcotics? I certainly would not.
Would you want the man who builds your house to be sober? I think you would.

"First let me say that I am defining immoral as "causing harm to yourself or others " Which is quite a ridiculous definition. To paraphrase a sig quote (Heinlein I believe) that I had a while back, the only sin is hurting other people, hurting yourself is just stupid.

I can see no logical reason to believe that hurting myself is much different than harming another. I believe I am as valuable as the next guy. Why is it okay to hurt yourself, if it is not okay to hurt another?

Also it should be pointed out that correlation does not mean causality. If people who use drugs commit more crimes it does not follow that drugs cause crime, its more probable that people who would commit crimes in any case are more likely to use drugs or that drugs/crime are merely symptoms of more deeply-rooted problems.

I agree completely.

[chequita guevara]

Your opinion is at odds with reality. Obviously you don't want a doctor working on you while he's under the influence, be it illegal drugs or alcohol or lack of sleep. The same with construction workers or other jobs. It's called professionalism. I don't work high or drunk. I don't do it and never will (except on my last day when I was working at a bar and everyone bought me drinks, but that was the one exception).

The problem then, is not drugs but rather the attitude that one takes towards work. If you take a serious attitude towards work, you won't impare yourself during work. But lack of drugs won't save you from incompetence. If you are a lazy f*ck-up you're a lazy f*ck-up whether you are high or not. Whereas if you have a professional attitude that's not a problem.

[Dis]

drugs r cool

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drago Sinio


Yes, they are being immoral. First let me say that I am defining immoral as "causing harm to yourself or others" which is the simplest definition I can think of at the moment. You must agree that drug abuse is harmful to yourself and or to others

Does this mean my shunning of vegetables in favour of lovely stuff fried in batter makes me immoral by your definition? Along with just about everything else I do, now I come to think of it.

I've no idea where you come from but I bet those long winter nights must drag on.

[Dis]

I might as well post my post before someone says something bad about my previous one.

I see very little wrong with american society and its laws regarding drugs. With one exception. Marijuana. Pot should be legal and everything else should be illegal. Legalizing every drug will not accomplish much. It might not hurt us very badly, but it certainly won't help. I also should say I suggest we move our focus of the drug war from police action to treatment centers. Free treatment centers obviously. Why should only rich people get treatment? Treatment should be free. All the money saved on border patrols can be used for this.

The answer is that simple. Dynamite and assault rifles are not legal- even if I want to use it for my own enjoyment (yes I would enjoy that much). Drugs can be used to kill people as easily as guns. So why should drugs be legal? I say legalize marijuana since its effects are less than alcohol. Every other drug has serious side effects including ecstacy. They should be illegal.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Including alcohol, caffeine and tobacco?

[Dis]

those are already legal. maybe I wasn't clear above . my fault. I meant that drugs that are already illegal should remain that way except for marijuana

[Dis]

although...

get rid of alcohol you get rid of drunk driving deaths, much spousal abuse, many assaults and other crimes

get rid of caffeine and you might get rid of road rage- maybe

get rid of tobacco and you get rid of second hand smoke effects. and first hand, but nobody cares about smoker's health

[Drago Sinio]

The problem then, is not drugs but rather the attitude that one takes towards work. If you take a serious attitude towards work, you won't impare yourself during work. But lack of drugs won't save you from incompetence. If you are a lazy f*ck-up you're a lazy f*ck-up whether you are high or not. Whereas if you have a professional attitude that's not a problem.

I think that should be spelled "impair", but of course you are right. An even better attitude would be to not risk any damage to your brain with drugs in the first place. Particularly with illegal drugs of unknown strength or purity.

Does this mean my shunning of vegetables in favour of lovely stuff fried in batter makes me immoral by your definition?

Yes, but just a little. I am drinking a nice glass of Guiness Extra Stout as I type this. (Yum.) So count me as immoral too, in that respect. Although I think Guiness advertises some health benefits, so maybe not.

I've no idea where you come from but I bet those long winter nights must drag on.

New Jersey - about fifteen generations. No turnpike jokes please.
Never ever done any drugs, no matter how long the night.

[Wraith]

There hasn't been a whole lot in this thread worthy of comment since my last post. There is one thing I can't let pass by, though.

--"I can see no logical reason to believe that hurting myself is much different than harming another."

I can. It's your body, after all, so you do get to decide what to do with it. Hurting others is an imposition of force on them, far more often against their will than by their invitation (bondage and Ds games aside).
To phrase it differently, I don't see why anyone has any greater right to tell you what not to do with your body than they do to tell you what to do with it. If you want to learn to sleep on a bed of nails or walk on hot coals, go for it. By the same token, if you don't want to eat health food, why should I be able to force you?

Just like if you've got some nice furniture you want to chop into firewood, I'm not going to stop you, then if you want to inject chemicals (great, now I'm thinking about Mr. Tulip...) into your body, I'm not going to stop you.

The only way I can see you getting hurting yourself as being immoral is if you're presupposing that we "owe" something to society or reality or some god. But we can have the altruism vs. selfishness war in another thread.

Wraith
"Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Drago Sinio


According to me. Of course it is a matter of degree. You can harm yourself a tiny bit, or a great deal. That is entirely up to you.

No action is perfectly non-harmful. Eating causes wear and tear to your teeth. So I guess its immoral to eat.

But let's get more practical. We live in a world of risks and rewards. Everyday we conciously make choices that harm or potentially harm ourselves because we feel the expected outcome is worth the risk. One could argue that junk food is bad for you therefore immoral. By the same token one could argue that anything but the perfect diet would be more harmful than the perfect diet. So anyone who doesn't always eat the perfect diet always is acting immoral by your standard. This just shows why you standard is no standard at all. It is impossible to achieve, subjective and can be in conflict with itself.

Back to "drugs". Like junk food, there is a cost benefit analysis that goes along with taking any drug from caffiene to heroin. I prefer my analysis be used on myself rather a bunch of burueacrats that have never met me or your analysis for that matter. As for marijuana specifically, I find the associated cost low and the corresponding benefits high. Therefore I partake. If your analysis is different for yourself I respect that. But, just as you would not want me to force you to take marijuana or eat a healthy food that you disliked please don't force your preferences on me.

My opinion is that the businessmen and professionals you speak of cannot possibly take drugs regularly, over a long period of time, without doing harm.

I own my own successful business and before that I was on the executive staff at a very famous company. I have smoked marijuana regularly for 22 years. Please don't pretend to know what is best for others and I won't pretend to know what is best for you.

Would you want to be treated by a Doctor whose brain has been dulled by narcotics? I certainly would not.
Would you want the man who builds your house to be sober? I think you would.

No I wouldn't, but your question presupposes a condition I don't agree with. I'm sure you would agree that you wouldn't want your surgeon jittery from too much caffiene. But your experience probably would lead you to believe that that isn't a worry. My experience leads me to believe that it really doesn't matter if someone smoked a joint last night.

As for the man building my house, I would expect him as I expect everyone for that matter to be sober on the job. I could care or less if he drank beer the night beforeor smoked a joint or drank caffiene. But I wouldn't want them showing up drunk or high. But, if I had to accept one or the other I would prefer them to be high as opposed to drunk.

I can see no logical reason to believe that hurting myself is much different than harming another. I believe I am as valuable as the next guy. Why is it okay to hurt yourself, if it is not okay to hurt another?

Well for one thing you own yourself. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself but if you feel it necessary to hurt someone I prefer you choose yourself before me or another innocent person.

The real problem is that your question presupposes that you know what is best for me. Does that mean I know whats best for you. Or does that mean your knowledge of the world is better then everyone elses and we must all follow your opinion and the opinions of those that agree with you.

If a person is incapable of making there own decisions how can another person be capable of making them for him.

[November Adam]

If you live in a box then any actions that you do to yourself won't affect others, but most of us don't live in a box.

Those drugs that you take affect more than you, and if you can't see it your being irresponsible.

In a family drug use has obvious affects, I know someone who believes that his alchol use is harmless. Which at first may be the case but over time that is obviously not so.

That is just an obvious situation, but say it's less obvious. Like you only toke up every once in awhile, who are you harming? Well, yourself for one, which in turn puts a drag on everyone else if you live in a society with socialized health care.

If not then your employeer as your not all that functional if you come to work hung over... etc.

Our societies have decided that tobacoo use, and alchol use are ok, thus we have to be willing to deal with the issues that come up with them. By saying that other drug use is not ok, we have a right to complain about the issues that pop up with them.

[Drago Sinio]

--"I can see no logical reason to believe that hurting myself is much different than harming another."

I can. It's your body, after all, so you do get to decide what to do with it. Hurting others is an imposition of force on them, far more often against their will than by their invitation

That is a different question. I am saying it is wrong to hurt anyone, including yourself. It's not a question of who decides, its a question of right and wrong -- and it's wrong in my opinion.

The real problem is that your question presupposes that you know what is best for me. Does that mean I know whats best for you. Or does that mean your knowledge of the world is better then everyone elses and we must all follow your opinion and the opinions of those that agree with you.

I think we both know whats best. Its best not to take the drugs.
But I am in no way forcing my opinion on anyone, I am merely stating it.

You are free to do what you think best. Or not. Youare also free to violate the law, and take the risk of being punished for it. Or even to change the law if enough folks agree with you. This really is a great country.

I own my own successful business and before that I was on the executive staff at a very famous company. I have smoked marijuana regularly for 22 years. Please don't pretend to know what is best for others and I won't pretend to know what is best for you.

And I would bet that your business would be even more successful without the grass. Or maybe not. Depends how much you smoke, and how often. I am not pretending to know, I do know, and furthermore so do you. It's called denial.

My experience leads me to believe that it really doesn't matter if someone smoked a joint last night.

How about if they smoked an hour ago? Ten minutes ago? How about if they smoked so much and so often that their intellect was dulled by it? How aobut if they accidentally smoked some with some other drug added to it. I remember one time a close friend who did all the drugs known to man, smoked a joint that knocked him on his butt for 8 hours. Never did figure out what was in that one. He was literally so far "out" that his girlfreind thought he was gonna die, and called 911. Now I cant say for sure, but his health is terrible, he cant concentrate worth a damn, and he has all sorts of mood swings. I have always felt it was the drugs he took steadily for ten years during and after high school. That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.