87 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

I do not support the idea of random drug testing as a method of identifying people who have used drugs at some point in the past without a good present reason (like e.g. applying for a job, but even then, not just any job). I can't think of any situation where a normal society should allow such a form of harrasement.

 

I do, but then again I think using illegal substances should carry a very severe penalty. Cause I don't like them, I don't understand why other people would like them, and I consider their recreational use to be a societal threat.

 

But that's just me.

[slimshadyinc]

I believe that all kinds of drug testing is wrong because I personally believe people should be allowed to consume whatever they want into their body, whether it be weed or alcohol or anything else. And to me, this is noones business whatsoever. Not to mention I believe it's slightly degrading in a way.

So for a cop or anyone else for that matter, going to their job drunk high or whatever have you. If they do it right before work or even at work, I feel as though they will be caught eventually. Especially if they are doing it to the point where they can't even perform their duty. Your just gonna know when someone isn't acting right.

How can random drug tests prevent this from happening? I just don't see it. It's a deterant at best.

Edited by slimshadyinc, 25 July 2015 - 03:57 PM.

[Haflinger]

I think using illegal substances should carry a very severe penalty. Cause I don't like them, I don't understand why other people would like them, and I consider their recreational use to be a societal threat.

Just because they're illegal?
 
So if one were to, say, outlaw caffeine, you would consider its recreational use to be a societal threat?

[He who posts]

You have a who watches the watchers problem in a nutshell:

Federal Bureau of Investigation from the time they had dashing suits and wielding thompson submachine guns and shotguns

Edited by xoindotnler, 26 July 2015 - 06:12 AM.

[Lord Draculea]

The "who watches the watchers" problem occurs wherever you have a system of checks & balances in place. It doesn't mean that ways to work around it can't be found or weren't found.

[Redezra]

I think using illegal substances should carry a very severe penalty. Cause I don't like them, I don't understand why other people would like them, and I consider their recreational use to be a societal threat.

Just because they're illegal?
 
So if one were to, say, outlaw caffeine, you would consider its recreational use to be a societal threat?

Hey I have every intent of outlawing caffeine.

[Haflinger]

That's not an answer. You seem to think that because something is illegal, that makes it prima facie bad.

 

So for example, someone with a prescription for morphine who's abusing it is fine, because they're taking it legally, but someone without a prescription for, hmmm, Adderall who plays videogames competitively and uses it then isn't.

[Manoka]

I think using illegal substances should carry a very severe penalty. Cause I don't like them, I don't understand why other people would like them, and I consider their recreational use to be a societal threat.

Just because they're illegal?
 
So if one were to, say, outlaw caffeine, you would consider its recreational use to be a societal threat?

Except caffeine rarely sends people into homicidal rages, and something like cocaine does often. 

 

48% of all homicides involved the presence of illegal drugs. Considering far less than half of the population are chronic drug users, there's at least a "much" higher chance of people going nuts and doing bad things when on drugs. (Page 2) Also coincidentally, 48% of assaults. 

 

If we throw in accidents, car accidents, there's a lot of deaths to add there to. Disproportionately. Then when we consider the amount of heart disease and liver disease, which are actually leading killers in the U.S.?

 

 

Although, if we're talking about, harm to others, and not self harm, homicides, assaults and accidents are generally more important. If it was as mainstream as say, caffeine, yeah we'd have a LOT more car accidents, and murders. You can't expect someone to be rational when the very drug itself inherently makes people irrational. 

[Redezra]

That's not an answer. You seem to think that because something is illegal, that makes it prima facie bad.

 

So for example, someone with a prescription for morphine who's abusing it is fine, because they're taking it legally, but someone without a prescription for, hmmm, Adderall who plays videogames competitively and uses it then isn't.

 

No my belief is that all substances are bad in varying levels. In some cases, it is medically necessary to give someone something for whatever reason, and I trust the medical community to decide when that is and is not acceptable. The legality follows from that.

 

And before you say "but like, weed is ok for recreational use", no, no it's not. Some doctors may be fine with it, but I know that it is categorically bad as far as the APA (or, psychologists) are concerned. And I'm quite certain those are experts too.

 

If I need to go about flattening all substance use and whitelisting foods because some idiots don't believe it's "fair", then believe me, that's what my super awesome 'Dezra dictatorship will do. But I do not, and will not approve of ignorant people trying to make policy. That's my primary issue with current politics, and I stick to it.

[Haflinger]

No my belief is that all substances are bad in varying levels. 

Substances?

Define this term, at least how you are using it.

Substance is a very broad term from physics. Water is a substance, for example.

[Redezra]

I do not define it, I leave that up to the medical profession.

[Lord Draculea]

So then, what you're saying Redezra is that you are favouring a global solution in the name of a "Greater Good"? Did I get it right?

[slimshadyinc]

These "substances" are not the problem nor are they evil. Good people can use these substances and bad people can use them as well. But its not the substances themselves that is a danger to society. It's the bad people who are a danger to your society, ban the substances or not. It still does not change anything. Bad people will be bad and good people will be good. Sometimes they will switch between the other. The substances they put into their body does not change who they are, they already had that problem to begin with.

[Lord Draculea]

What I've learnt from experience is that people are complicated beings, and simple, global solutions to their problems (especially involving severe punishment) seldom work. Even if psychologists believe that certain substances are generally bad, I don't think you will hear many of them saying that the solution to this problem should be a general upfront ban of any potentially harmful substances, followed by a harsh repression of anyone caught using them.

For instance, I like the Dutch system, where shops selling "light" drugs are legal, because it prevents people from having to come in contact with really dangerous distributors, who sell the "heavy" stuff. Once you have that in place, then you can focus on annihilating the illegal chains of distribution.

[Redezra]

So then, what you're saying Redezra is that you are favouring a global solution in the name of a "Greater Good"? Did I get it right?

 

Pretty much. It's a nice thing to be able to say when people are all "Why do you hate freedom?"

 

These "substances" are not the problem nor are they evil. Good people can use these substances and bad people can use them as well. But its not the substances themselves that is a danger to society. It's the bad people who are a danger to your society, ban the substances or not. It still does not change anything. Bad people will be bad and good people will be good. Sometimes they will switch between the other. The substances they put into their body does not change who they are, they already had that problem to begin with.

 

Mmm, nah, I disagree. I agree with the people who have scientific knowledge in the field, like doctors, psychologists, you know.... learned people. They tell me, nah, it's a bad. So it's a bad. And then I crack down on it in my favourite way.

 

Er... by cracking down.

Edited by Redezra, 27 July 2015 - 10:08 AM.

[Lord Draculea]

Mmm, nah, I disagree. I agree with the people who have scientific knowledge in the field, like doctors, psychologists, you know.... learned people. They tell me, nah, it's a bad. So it's a bad. And then I crack down on it in my favourite way.

Er... by cracking down.

Even if the "learned people" you mention agree that some substances are bad, it doesn't follow that the solution is simple, wouldn't you say? Moreover, it requires a multi-area approach, not just medical, but also e.g. social and political. If we are to be of any help, we should not try to ignore the complexity of the world to match it with our own moral standards (it's been tried before, with catastrophic results), and always beware of wishful thinking...

[slimshadyinc]

Learned people may know what's good for your mind or your body, but they don't know what's good for your soul! Marijuana is good for the soul

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There's also plenty of evidence from medical professionals about the medical (and other) benefits of marijuana.

[Redezra]

There's also plenty of evidence from medical professionals about the medical (and other) benefits of marijuana.

 

But it's not clear cut support. And it's also "eh don't worry about it". It's a mix of "eh don't worry about it" and "no we should not be doing this". That is not a strong reason to support anything, that's a strong reason for further research.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The opposition is not clear cut, either. In fact, much of it is based on old cultural prejudices. If you're interested, read Dr. Sanjay Gupta's piece on why he (formerly one of the most outspoken critics of medical marijuana) changed his mind.

 

And no, it's not a mix of "eh don't worry about it" and "no we should not be doing this". Sometimes, Red, you can be a little rigid and dogmatic in your thinking.

 

But we still love you.