Cowboy Bebop: BLOODY-EYE Prohibition - Morally Justified?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-13 01:35am

In the spirit of the DEA thread, I have a question. Is the government of humanity in Cowboy Bebop morally justified in prohibiting the sale and usage of Bloody Eye? Or is it just infringing on peoples' rights by doing so?

Bloody-Eye, for those of you that don't know, is a highly refined version of another drug called Red-Eye. The drug, when taken in large enough doses, grants nearly superhuman strength to the user, making PCP look like pixie dust by comparison. It isn't inherently dangerous to anyone beyond the user, but it is extremely dangerous when in the wrong hands. The drug is more dangerous by far than anything that we have today.

In the government's defense, they don't appear to do the job entirely by themselves; they contract much of it out to much more efficient bounty hunters.

{edit} Vote Yes for morally justified (keep the ban), no for not morally justified (remove the ban).

{edit} And it deleted my poll, mother of fuck...

{edit} OK, there we go...ARGH, just ignore the other three options....

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-13 01:38am

Voting yes/no for the ban, or yes/no for the drug?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 01:46am

In the spirit of the DEA thread, I have a question. Is the government of humanity in Cowboy Bebop morally justified in prohibiting the sale and usage of Bloody Eye? Or is it just infringing on peoples' rights by doing so?

Given what Red-eye and the even worse Bloody-eye does, yes. The ban makes perfect sense. You don't want bloodthirsty berserkers running under with a major case of bloodlust.

Bloody-Eye, for those of you that don't know, is a highly refined version of another drug called Red-Eye. The drug, when taken in large enough doses, grants nearly superhuman strength to the user, making PCP look like pixie dust by comparison. It isn't inherently dangerous to anyone beyond the user, but it is extremely dangerous when in the wrong hands. The drug is more dangerous by far than anything that we have today.

Red-eye and Bloody-Eye is not harmless. It sends the user into a muderous frenzy with continued use. Asimov was out for blood perpetually, at the end, even while not on the drug. It's definitely dangerous to innocents.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-04-13 01:54am

Shouldnt this be in other-sci fi?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-13 01:55am

Yes.

And my vote is to keep the bans. They're there for a reason.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-04-13 01:57am

How would you liked enraged super-human beserkers running through YOUR neighborhood?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-04-13 01:58am

Asimov went nuts after he took the stuff. He killed people, too. Why wouldn't this be banned?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-13 02:10am

Well, it's questionable how effective measures taken to prevent the flow and usage of the drug are (the power and influence of the Syndicate is proof of that).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-13 04:07am

It depends on

1) Is prohibition effective

and

2) If it is, do the benefits of restricting the flow of the drug outweight the inevitable unintended consequences of prohibition?

and

3) Are the effects of the drug usage bad enough to warrant a violation of the basic human right to do with as one wishes to one's own body?

If the answer to all three is yes, then and only then is prohibition moral.

Since I've never seen the series, I can't answer the question.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-04-13 06:46am

I'm all for a total ban.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-13 10:22am

1) Is prohibition effective

It seems to be reasonably so. It's hard to judge because the people we see most of the show are criminals and bounty hunters. Still, it seems fairly effective.

2) If it is, do the benefits of restricting the flow of the drug outweight the inevitable unintended consequences of prohibition?

Given that it turns people into blood crazed, super human, berserkers; I'd say that the ban is clearly worthwhile. The effects of people like that running around clearly out weigh the harm of the ban.

3) Are the effects of the drug usage bad enough to warrant a violation of the basic human right to do with as one wishes to one's own body?

Yes. Like I said, blood crazed, super human bersekers running around pose a serious threat to everyone.

And yes, this belongs in other sci-fi.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-04-13 10:16pm

1) Is prohibition effective

Unknown. We only saw a Bloody Eye user once in the series.

2) If it is, do the benefits of restricting the flow of the drug outweight the inevitable unintended consequences of prohibition?

As has been said, Bloody Eye turns the user into an ultrafast berserker (Asimov was ripping up entire groups of syndicate members sent to catch him).

3) Are the effects of the drug usage bad enough to warrant a violation of the basic human right to do with as one wishes to one's own body?

Bloody Eye isn't a drug like marijuana, where it's used to produce a high. Bloody Eye is an ultrastimulant, used by criminals to pump up their strength and reflexes to an insane degree (Asimov was seen dodging bullets). Side effects seem to be that the body uses a lot of energy (which is why asmiov was breathing heavily later on) and apparently cause a dependancy of some kind (which is why Asimov was seeing in shades of red while not under the influence of the drug).

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-04-14 12:47am

Bloody Eye in action.

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~chih/Bullet.avi

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2003-04-14 01:54pm

Look, banning drugs like that isn't a matter of personal freedom. Its a mater o preventing society from crumbling into anarchy. It's like having legalized missile launchers.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-04-14 01:59pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:Look, banning drugs like that isn't a matter of personal freedom. Its a mater o preventing society from crumbling into anarchy. It's like having legalized missile launchers.

Agreed.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 02:06pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:Look, banning drugs like that isn't a matter of personal freedom. Its a mater o preventing society from crumbling into anarchy. It's like having legalized missile launchers.

Not entirely. It's a matter of does it do damage to society and do individuals right have the right to engage in self-destructive behaviour. The debate, in real life, is whether drug addict cause sufficient harm to society to justify the drug war.

In this personal freedom doesn't really enter into it because there is a clear threat to society at large from the drug users.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-04-14 03:55pm

< Anti Gun Control Nut > No no no! The trick is to give EVERYONE Bloody Eye, so when someone turns into a beserker, the others will stophim by also turning into beserkers!! </ Anti Gun Control Nut >

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2003-04-14 06:33pm

That *would* rapidly get rid of anyone stupid enough to take the drugs.