A new Prohibition Era?

[Graeme Dice]

You deny them nothing, for they are entitled to nothing. It is not an inherent right that others should sacrifice for the suffering. You have to force others to do so. If a person chooses to undertake action that may end his life, it is his choice. He has to force me to pay for his actions. THAT is immoral, the initiation of force to take from others what they earned and give to those who have inflicting injury on themselves.

I suggest you read up on the history of the U.S. Everybody is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. Or if you aren't an American citizen, then I suggest articles 3 and 25 of the Universal declaration of human rights:
"Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
"Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

[kojikun]

That does not mean that they are entitled to preserve their life by hurting others. I refer you to Amendment 9, which states that no right shall be made to infringe on any other. The right to your life is not to infringe on my liberty. And that does not make the constitutions interpretation of Locke's Natural Rights the correct interpretation. You do not have the right to force me to do something I do not wish to you. That is the basis of our society.

[kojikun]

Hold the phone, you're quoting a declaration made by the United Nations, not by the United States. Your declaration has no bearing on the US, nor should such a despicable thing.

[Graeme Dice]

That does not mean that they are entitled to preserve their life by hurting others. I refer you to Amendment 9, which states that no right shall be made to infringe on any other. The right to your life is not to infringe on my liberty.

And neither is your right to liberty to infringe on that person's right to life.

And that does not make the constitutions interpretation of Locke's Natural Rights the correct interpretation.

I wasn't aware that Locke was the be-all and end-all of philosophy.

You do not have the right to force me to do something I do not wish to you. That is the basis of our society.

Of course I have the right to force you to do something you don't want to do. That is the function and purpose of the legal system.

[kojikun]

And neither is your right to liberty to infringe on that person's right to life.

I'm not taking away their life, however, they're taking it away themselves.

I wasn't aware that Locke was the be-all and end-all of philosophy.

He isn't, but we're discussing inherent rights, and it are his who you use. Or rather, his after modification by the Founders so to prevent people from demanding a right to property.

Of course I have the right to force you to do something you don't want to do. That is the function and purpose of the legal system.

Bullshit you do. The legal system exists to punish actions which violate our rights, nothing more. The second you violate someones rights is the second you volunteer your own to be violated.

[Graeme Dice]

Hold the phone, you're quoting a declaration made by the United Nations, not by the United States.

I' quoted both, just in case you weren't an American citizen.

Your declaration has no bearing on the US, nor should such a despicable thing.

I'm glad to see that you thnk that universal human rights are a despicable thing. I suppose you believe that human rights only apply to your fellow Americans, and damn the rest of the world?

[Graeme Dice]

I'm not taking away their life, however, they're taking it away themselves.

No, you are denying them the basic necessities of life, which means you are directly responsible for their death.

He isn't, but we're discussing inherent rights, and it are his who you use. Or rather, his after modification by the Founders so to prevent people from demanding a right to property.

Which still doesn't give you the right to cause another person's death.

Bullshit you do. The legal system exists to punish actions which violate our rights, nothing more. The second you violate someones rights is the second you volunteer your own to be violated.

The legal system can force you to do something you don't want it to, as can the government. You can be drafted for the military for example. You can also be forced to make payments to others through the legal system, even if you have not violated any of their rights.

[kojikun]

I'm glad to see that you thnk that universal human rights are a despicable thing. I suppose you believe that human rights only apply to your fellow Americans, and damn the rest of the world?

They are if these "rights" involve FORCING people who have done nothing to suffer for the sake of others. And I believe quite the contrary, it is my firm belief that the only way I can say with integrity that I value peoples rights is if I support everyones rights to the same.

But you seem to hate the right to choose ones own destiny. After all, if everyone has a right to life, then we should try to prevent them from voluntarilly commiting suicide. Infact, we should prevent them from doing anything that might shorten their lifespans. We should not let them do anything other than what is found to be the safest thing possible. This is what you seem to advocate, removal of all voluntary actions (ie screwing yourself over with drugs) in order to preserve life. Well I'm sorry, but removing someones right to choose their own destiny is immoral. Life without freedom is life without happiness, and life without happiness is not one worth living.

[kojikun]

No, you are denying them the basic necessities of life, which means you are directly responsible for their death.

I deny them nothing, they are the ones denying it to themselves. They made a CHOICE.

Which still doesn't give you the right to cause another person's death.

I didn't cause it, his own actions cause it.

The legal system can force you to do something you don't want it to, as can the government. You can be drafted for the military for example. You can also be forced to make payments to others through the legal system, even if you have not violated any of their rights.

And these are immoral things. Government should protect our rights and freedoms, not limit them.

[kojikun]

But Graeme, what fear is there? You are perfectly willing to slit your wrists to save others, so all we need are a few more people like you and the world will be perfect.

[Graeme Dice]

They are if these "rights" involve FORCING people who have done nothing to suffer for the sake of others. And I believe quite the contrary, it is my firm belief that the only way I can say with integrity that I value peoples rights is if I support everyones rights to the same.

You are still perfectly willing to sit and watch someone starve to death instead of feeding them. All it takes is for you to believe that the person brought their troubles on themselves and you have no problem with just watching them die. Is this a correct interpretation of your morals?

But you seem to hate the right to choose ones own destiny. After all, if everyone has a right to life, then we should try to prevent them from voluntarilly commiting suicide.

We do exactly this. Suicide is illegal, and people caught attempting it can be arrested for their own protection.

Infact, we should prevent them from doing anything that might shorten their lifespans. We should not let them do anything other than what is found to be the safest thing possible.

We do make attempts to prevent people from injuring themselves. You seem to have a strange lack of information on the state of the world around you if you believe that this is not the case.

This is what you seem to advocate, removal of all voluntary actions (ie screwing yourself over with drugs) in order to preserve life. Well I'm sorry, but removing someones right to choose their own destiny is immoral. Life without freedom is life without happiness, and life without happiness is not one worth living.

Then you are immoral, as you have previously stated that you will allow people to starve to death if you believe that their troubles are self-inflicted. By doing so, you are removing both their right to life, and their right to pursue their own destiny.

[Graeme Dice]

I deny them nothing,

Except food, shelter, and the other necessities of life.

they are the ones denying it to themselves. They made a CHOICE.

Ahhh, you are assuming that they had perfect information when they made the choice. Unfortunately for you, that situation doesn't exist in the real world.

I didn't cause it, his own actions cause it.

You stood by and watched the person die. That makes you complicit in his death.

And these are immoral things. Government should protect our rights and freedoms, not limit them.

It is one of the jobs of government to limit the behaviour of individuals for the benefit of society as a whole.

[kojikun]

You are still perfectly willing to sit and watch someone starve to death instead of feeding them. All it takes is for you to believe that the person brought their troubles on themselves and you have no problem with just watching them die. Is this a correct interpretation of your morals?

If they, by their own actions, choose this path, it is immoral to choose otherwise for them. Belief is irrelevant. If they did cause their own suffering, then it is their responsibility to get out of it. If others choose to help, so be it, thats good. But forcing others to help is immoral.

We do exactly this. Suicide is illegal, and people caught attempting it can be arrested for their own protection.

Which is also immoral. You have the right to life, not to being forced to live.

We do make attempts to prevent people from injuring themselves. You seem to have a strange lack of information on the state of the world around you if you believe that this is not the case.

I was speaking of your views, not what exists. Prevention of unintentional harm is one thing, prevention of intentional harm is entirely different. And this brings up the topic of "what is harm and what self inflicted harm is permissable?" Well, Graeme? What is your response to that? Is socially unacceptable actions that cause you to loose your job, damage your reputation, etc, harm? Should we thus prevent people from doing whats not socially acceptable, on the grounds that its better for them, and helps them live a longer healthier life? IF you say yes, than this discussion is over, as you have admitted to being the most immoral of beings.

Then you are immoral, as you have previously stated that you will allow people to starve to death if you believe that their troubles are self-inflicted. By doing so, you are removing both their right to life, and their right to pursue their own destiny.

How am I immoral? Self inflicted harm is voluntary. THEY removed their own life and pursuit of happiness of their own will, as they saw fit. That is not my fault and I should not be punished for their choices.

[Graeme Dice]

But Graeme, what fear is there? You are perfectly willing to slit your wrists to save others,

Not my wrists, but I do donate blood, voluntarily, to whoever may need it every eight weeks. You would advocate that such behaviour is immoral, as it may be used for someone who inflicted pain on themselves.

so all we need are a few more people like you and the world will be perfect.

No, I'm not willing to kill myself to save others, but I am willing to make sacrifices to save others. The fact that you are not makes you no different from any number of tyrants through history who were able to stand by and claim that people caused their own misfortunes.

[kojikun]

Except food, shelter, and the other necessities of life.

They deny it to themselves. I take nothing from them.

Ahhh, you are assuming that they had perfect information when they made the choice. Unfortunately for you, that situation doesn't exist in the real world.

It is not my fault they did not get good information. That is their responsibility, not mine. By choosing to do something that they did not know the danger of they also accept the potential consequences.

You stood by and watched the person die. That makes you complicit in his death.

No, it makes me entirely unresponsible for his death. It was his choice that killed him.

It is one of the jobs of government to limit the behaviour of individuals for the benefit of society as a whole.

And that is wholely immoral.

[kojikun]

Not my wrists, but I do donate blood, voluntarily, to whoever may need it every eight weeks. You would advocate that such behaviour is immoral, as it may be used for someone who inflicted pain on themselves.

Quite the contrary. Because you do it voluntarilly I argue that you are being as moral as anyone can be and that such acts are virtuous.

No, I'm not willing to kill myself to save others, but I am willing to make sacrifices to save others. The fact that you are not makes you no different from any number of tyrants through history who were able to stand by and claim that people caused their own misfortunes.

I am willing to do things voluntarilly to help others, but not if they will harm me. It is the worst tyrant in history who promoted self sacrifice for the common good, or do you forget that Communism is about exactly that, and that Stalin is arguably the biggest mass murderer ever? Soviet Russia is the result of your forced altruism taken to the maximum extent.

[Graeme Dice]

If they, by their own actions, choose this path, it is immoral to choose otherwise for them. Belief is irrelevant. If they did cause their own suffering, then it is their responsibility to get out of it. If others choose to help, so be it, thats good. But forcing others to help is immoral.

You are assuming that everyone has perfect information on the final outcomes of their choices before they make them. This situation does not exist in the real world, and as such people can choose a path without being aware of the consequences.

Which is also immoral. You have the right to life, not to being forced to live.

It is also immoral to allow people that are not mentally stable to kill themselves. They are not capable of making the choices you seem to think that everyone makes for themselves.

I was speaking of your views, not what exists. Prevention of unintentional harm is one thing, prevention of intentional harm is entirely different. And this brings up the topic of "what is harm and what self inflicted harm is permissable?" Well, Graeme? What is your response to that? Is socially unacceptable actions that cause you to loose your job, damage your reputation, etc, harm? Should we thus prevent people from doing whats not socially acceptable, on the grounds that its better for them, and helps them live a longer healthier life? IF you say yes, than this discussion is over, as you have admitted to being the most immoral of beings.

You are completely ignoring the fact that there are various levels of harm that can occur to a person. This can range from minor inconveniences, such a giving yourself a paper cut because you chose to run paper sideways across your finger, to death from shooting yourself in the head. That your moral system ignores that there is a spectrum of harm that is possible demonstrates part of its ineffectiveness.

How am I immoral? Self inflicted harm is voluntary. THEY removed their own life and pursuit of happiness of their own will, as they saw fit. That is not my fault and I should not be punished for their choices.

This is only true if the person was completely and perfectly informed of the possible outcomes of their choices before they made them, and if the person was perfectly mentally stable and capable of understanding the consequences of their choices. Since such a thing is not possible in the real world, which is the downfall of your moral system.

[Graeme Dice]

They deny it to themselves. I take nothing from them.

If you have more than you need, and you deny it to people who are starving to death, then you are immoral. This makes most of us somewhat immoral. However, you would stand by and watch someone starve to death if you believed that their situation was self-inflicted which means that you are one of the most cold-hearted individuals to walk the face of this planet.

It is not my fault they did not get good information. That is their responsibility, not mine. By choosing to do something that they did not know the danger of they also accept the potential consequences.

You are assuming that the person had perfect information and was capable of making intelligent, reasoned decisions when they made their choice. This is demonstratably not always the case.

No, it makes me entirely unresponsible for his death. It was his choice that killed him.

Yet you let the death happen when you could have prevented it.

And that is wholely immoral.

So how is the government supposed to pay for protecting your rights? Are they supposed to rely on volunteer contributions to fund the military and the police forces?

[Graeme Dice]

Quite the contrary. Because you do it voluntarilly I argue that you are being as moral as anyone can be and that such acts are virtuous.

Thank you for that admission.

I am willing to do things voluntarilly to help others, but not if they will harm me.

But I am demonstratably harmed by donating blood. There is a small amount of pain, and your oxygen handling capabilities are diminished for a time.

It is the worst tyrant in history who promoted self sacrifice for the common good, or do you forget that Communism is about exactly that, and that Stalin is arguably the biggest mass murderer ever? Soviet Russia is the result of your forced altruism taken to the maximum extent.

Which is why it not necessary, or advisable to take anything to the maximum extent. Your system, on the other hand, would lead to deaths of many people who may have benefitted society if they were taken care of.

[SPOOFE]

It’s really quite simple: those people who become involved in the so-called “hard drugs” whose legalization you just threw your support behind become a burden on society, for whom I am expected to pay.

Not all drugs are the same. Heroin is physically addictive, LSD is not. Cocaine is physically addictive, marijuana is not. Learn the difference between the drugs before you spout off your ignorant mouth about them.

Furthermore, how big a burden on society is alcohol and cigarettes? What about those that become addicted to prescription drugs?

Explain to me how anybody is reasonably expected to become a “responsible” cocaine or PCP addict.

Strawman. Nobody is arguing in favor of cocaine or PCP. If you weren't closing your eyes and plugging your ears, you might've seen that.

Decades of study are inconclusive. The FDA doesn’t let you put it into your body if nobody’s familiar with what it can do. Marijuana is one of those substances whose side-effects are still relatively unknown.

Bull and fucking shit. Learn a thing or two before making claims.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_225.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030516.html
http://www.allsands.com/Health/Alternat ... xho_gn.htm
http://www.drugsinfofile.com/cannabis.html

The only thing that's been "unknown" about marijuana has been the long-term effects... which has recently been put to rest by a recent study by the University of San Diego, which found no significant long-term effects.

Didja hear that? That was the sound of your incorrect beliefs beind blasted out of the water.

I believe that all drugs should remain illegal

Aspirin? Penicillin? Salvia? Morphine? Alcohol? Nicotine?

Do you really believe that "all drugs" should remain illegal, or are you simply mindlessly parroting the established dictation that "drugs is bad" with no evidence whatsoever?

Of course marijuana is a gateway drug.

Cite, please.

The people who sell it to you come along with a whole network of contacts and criminal ties.

I know about twenty dealers in my area. None of them have connections to anyone that have committed a crime worse than selling weed.

However, if you have any evidence that most dealers have criminal networks and contacts, feel free to share it with the class rather than making shit up.

However, I’d be paying even more if certain forms of dissuasion were suddenly removed.

False: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~haans/misc/mjdcrim.html

From the link...

For example, it is generally noted that the use of marijuana in these states has not risen significantly in relation to non-decriminalized states (Single, 1989; National Research Council of the National Academy of Science, 1982). These states also saw a predictable decline in marijuana possession cases. In California, the total cost of marijuana law enforcement dropped 74%, from $17 million to $4.4 million

So we see that your desire to keep drugs illegal is actually costing MORE money than decriminalization would.

Those who overdose often leave behind families necessitating state intervention.

... And nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose. Kinda defeats your argument, doesn't it?

I’d be condoning drug use if I were to disregard the moral terms of its use and accept that everybody should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves.

No, you wouldn't. However, your delusional "moral terms" have no basis in fact, which is why your argument holds no water.

Why wait for it to go past self-inflicted pain at all?

Ever hear the term "innocent until proven guilty"?

The differences between the marijuana of forty years ago and today are immense.

The only difference is that there is more THC in the plants grown today, due to usual cultivation improvements and breeding. THC is harmless. It's the tars and carcinogens in marijuana that is harmful.

Drugs and alcohol are different.

Alcohol is a drug, just like nicotine or caffeine. There is no difference. A drug, by definition, is anything that has a side effect.

But as marijuana exists now, it is. You also need to ask if levels of potence will still prompt people to seek illegal varieties after legalization.

Why should one potency of marijuana be illegal while another is not? 5x salvia is just as legal as 15x salvia.

I don’t care whether automobiles kill millions worldwide when hard drugs don’t accumulate nearly that number. Automobiles are a necessity; hard drugs are not.

What is your definition of a "hard drug"?

I don’t care whether automobiles kill millions worldwide when hard drugs don’t accumulate nearly that number. Automobiles are a necessity; hard drugs are not.

It's not about "necessity". We don't legalize only things that we "need". It is not MY job to justify any drug use I want to undertake... it is YOUR job to justify banning it. YOU need to show that marijuana is harmful... which it is not. Until you can prove that marijuana is harmful, you have no argument.

[Graeme Dice]

The only thing that's been "unknown" about marijuana has been the long-term effects... which has recently been put to rest by a recent study by the University of San Diego, which found no significant long-term effects.

That's effects to the CNS, it doesn't deal with the long-term damage to your lungs caused by breathing smoke.

The only difference is that there is more THC in the plants grown today, due to usual cultivation improvements and breeding. THC is harmless. It's the tars and carcinogens in marijuana that is harmful.

But then you already knew that, so I'll just mosey along here.

[kojikun]

You are assuming that everyone has perfect information on the final outcomes of their choices before they make them. This situation does not exist in the real world, and as such people can choose a path without being aware of the consequences.

It is their responsibility to seek it. If they cannot find it, then they make the choice whether to risk their lives or not. If they are lied to, then they are wronged and the person who lied must make reparations.

It is also immoral to allow people that are not mentally stable to kill themselves. They are not capable of making the choices you seem to think that everyone makes for themselves.

Mental stability is an arbitrary term. Just look at the history of the American Mental Health Associations book of mental disorders. It changes yearly.

You are completely ignoring the fact that there are various levels of harm that can occur to a person. This can range from minor inconveniences, such a giving yourself a paper cut because you chose to run paper sideways across your finger, to death from shooting yourself in the head. That your moral system ignores that there is a spectrum of harm that is possible demonstrates part of its ineffectiveness.

And that your moral system supports forcing people to do harm to themselves to prevent harm to others demonstrates is complete hatre of humanity.

This is only true if the person was completely and perfectly informed of the possible outcomes of their choices before they made them, and if the person was perfectly mentally stable and capable of understanding the consequences of their choices. Since such a thing is not possible in the real world, which is the downfall of your moral system.

...

You are assuming that the person had perfect information and was capable of making intelligent, reasoned decisions when they made their choice. This is demonstratably not always the case.

Incorrect. Noone forced them to do something they knew might be harmful. And if the person is literally incapable of making a rational decision, that is entirely another matter not for this thread.

If you have more than you need, and you deny it to people who are starving to death, then you are immoral. This makes most of us somewhat immoral. However, you would stand by and watch someone starve to death if you believed that their situation was self-inflicted which means that you are one of the most cold-hearted individuals to walk the face of this planet.

Belief is irrelevant. If their actions incur such consequences, it is self inflicted. If I felt the need to help them, because I wanted to, then that is entirely up to me to do.

Yet you let the death happen when you could have prevented it.

I will say this one more time: It is not their right to force me to help them. That is immoral. It is also immoral to alter the course of action they chose without their consent.

So how is the government supposed to pay for protecting your rights? Are they supposed to rely on volunteer contributions to fund the military and the police forces?

If you want your rights bad enough you will volunteer your money. If you don't you loose your rights because you chose to not do what was necessary to preserve them. Ofcoure, I'm assuming people are responsible people. Because we know they are not, I cannot say removing taxes is a good thing. At best it is a necessary evil. At worst it is an excuse when other methods are possible. Further study is required to answer the question of what should be done in its place.

Thank you for that admission.

You are welcome to it.

But I am demonstratably harmed by donating blood. There is a small amount of pain, and your oxygen handling capabilities are diminished for a time.

This is true, but you chose it. It was your choice. You wanted to do it because it improved your life, it made you happier. Happiness is the point of living, without it we commit suicide or kill those who take our happiness from us.

Which is why it not necessary, or advisable to take anything to the maximum extent. Your system, on the other hand, would lead to deaths of many people who may have benefitted society if they were taken care of.

I am saying we should not force others to help, not that we should prevent them from helping voluntarilly. I point to days before government institutions that aim to help those disenfranchised by lifes quirks. In those times, to use a common example, if your house burned down, your friends would chip in and help you out, because thats what friends do when they value their friends. You also mention that they might have benefitted society. I argue that benefitting society is of less importance then personal freedom. People must be responsible for themselves, and must not sacrifice others to themselves nor themselves to others. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I believe that when people are faced with negative consequences to their inaction, they will react and voluntarilly do what is necessary to preserve their freedoms.

Spoofe: Penicillin is a mold, not a drug.

[Beowulf]

The only thing that's been "unknown" about marijuana has been the long-term effects... which has recently been put to rest by a recent study by the University of San Diego, which found no significant long-term effects.

That's effects to the CNS, it doesn't deal with the long-term damage to your lungs caused by breathing smoke.

Of which there is very little different from tobacco.

[Graeme Dice]

It is their responsibility to seek it. If they cannot find it, then they make the choice whether to risk their lives or not. If they are lied to, then they are wronged and the person who lied must make reparations.

You are holding people responsible for obtaining perfect information about the consequences of their actions. Such information is unattainable. A person may make a choice that they were unable to determine the consequences of to a reasonable degree of accuracy. You would hold that this person is responsible for their state, and should thus be allowed to starve?

Mental stability is an arbitrary term. Just look at the history of the American Mental Health Associations book of mental disorders. It changes yearly.

That's dodging the point. Would you argue that a schizophrenic is mentally stable if untreated? Should they be held responsible for every decision they make?

And that your moral system supports forcing people to do harm to themselves to prevent harm to others demonstrates is complete hatre of humanity.

It forces people to inconvenience themselves to prevent harm to others. That is not hatred. Yours on the other hand takes the stance that if a person makes a single mistake they should be allowed to suffer to the point where they may die. You require people to never make a mistake. I recognize that mistakes are going to happen, and should not result in undue suffering.

Incorrect. Noone forced them to do something they knew might be harmful. And if the person is literally incapable of making a rational decision, that is entirely another matter not for this thread.

You are still requiring that the person make a perfect choice based on perfect information or suffer. I would suggest that you not choose to live in such a society in case you ever make a mistake.

Belief is irrelevant. If their actions incur such consequences, it is self inflicted. If I felt the need to help them, because I wanted to, then that is entirely up to me to do.

Belief is not irrelevant, as we are dealing with the real world. You _cannot_ be completely certain that a person's condition was self-inflicted and that they are completely responsible for it. Thus, you are acting on your perception, or belief of their responsibility.

I will say this one more time: It is not their right to force me to help them. That is immoral. It is also immoral to alter the course of action they chose without their consent.

They have the right to life. You are taking that away from them by refusing your help. As you stated, you do not have the right to happiness, or to property, which means that your rights are not infringed by requiring you to help another person.

If you want your rights bad enough you will volunteer your money. If you don't you loose your rights because you chose to not do what was necessary to preserve them. Ofcoure, I'm assuming people are responsible people. Because we know they are not, I cannot say removing taxes is a good thing. At best it is a necessary evil. At worst it is an excuse when other methods are possible. Further study is required to answer the question of what should be done in its place.

But if taxes are allowed, then the government is allowed to cause harm to you for the benefit of others and society as a whole. Thus you have a problem with your moral system in that it cannot function unless people are responsible. Is this not correct?

This is true, but you chose it. It was your choice. You wanted to do it because it improved your life, it made you happier. Happiness is the point of living, without it we commit suicide or kill those who take our happiness from us.

True, I did choose it. However, we are not guaranteed happiness. We are only guaranteed that we will be given a chance to obtain it.

I am saying we should not force others to help, not that we should prevent them from helping voluntarilly. I point to days before government institutions that aim to help those disenfranchised by lifes quirks. In those times, to use a common example, if your house burned down, your friends would chip in and help you out, because thats what friends do when they value their friends. You also mention that they might have benefitted society. I argue that benefitting society is of less importance then personal freedom. People must be responsible for themselves, and must not sacrifice others to themselves nor themselves to others. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I believe that when people are faced with negative consequences to their inaction, they will react and voluntarilly do what is necessary to preserve their freedoms.

However, those who do not have friends or family should not be denied the same protections as those with friends and family. This is why the government creates such a social safety net. It catches those people who would otherwise suffer. I think that it is idealistic to think that people will always voluntarily act to help others, as people tend to be inherently greedy.

Spoofe: Penicillin is a mold, not a drug.

No, penicillum is a mold, penicillin is the chemical the mold produces to kill bacteria.

[kojikun]

You are holding people responsible for obtaining perfect information about the consequences of their actions. Such information is unattainable. A person may make a choice that they were unable to determine the consequences of to a reasonable degree of accuracy. You would hold that this person is responsible for their state, and should thus be allowed to starve?

Yes. If you know you could die, and choose to engage in such actions anyway, with disregard to the fact, then you deserve the consequences of your actions.

That's dodging the point. Would you argue that a schizophrenic is mentally stable if untreated? Should they be held responsible for every decision they make?

Yes. Consequences exist for a purpose, regardless of a persons volitional state.

It forces people to inconvenience themselves to prevent harm to others. That is not hatred.

Willingness to force is hatred. It is hatred of the inherent freedom to choose ones own destiny. It is hatred of what makes humans human.

Yours on the other hand takes the stance that if a person makes a single mistake they should be allowed to suffer to the point where they may die. You require people to never make a mistake. I recognize that mistakes are going to happen, and should not result in undue suffering.

Very few mistakes are lethal. And I do not say that people should not help them, I say that people should not be forced to help them.

You are still requiring that the person make a perfect choice based on perfect information or suffer. I would suggest that you not choose to live in such a society in case you ever make a mistake.

Do you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you cannot check if the gun is loaded? No. If you do, you're a fucking moron and deserve whatever comes from that. If you do not know if a drug is safe or not, you are wise not to take it, and foolish to take it. Complaining about the consequences is a foolish action, because you knew there was the possibility and accepted the risk.

Belief is not irrelevant, as we are dealing with the real world. You _cannot_ be completely certain that a person's condition was self-inflicted and that they are completely responsible for it. Thus, you are acting on your perception, or belief of their responsibility.

Belief IS irrelevant. There are only facts. If a person takes a drug, it is their action, noone elses. That is the topic of this discussion: drug use. Stay on it.

They have the right to life. You are taking that away from them by refusing your help. As you stated, you do not have the right to happiness, or to property, which means that your rights are not infringed by requiring you to help another person.

You do have the right to property, not to happiness however. I never said otherwise. And they do have the right to life, but that does not give them the right to remove my rights when they give up one of theirs. People are responsible for their own actions, noone elses. What about that don't you understand?

But if taxes are allowed, then the government is allowed to cause harm to you for the benefit of others and society as a whole. Thus you have a problem with your moral system in that it cannot function unless people are responsible. Is this not correct?

Yes, there comes a major conflict if you insist on taxes but espouse a position of protesting taxes. I am not saying that I insist on taxes, but I am not sure if there is another solution or not, due to the irresponsible culture we live in. As I said, further thought must be done.

True, I did choose it. However, we are not guaranteed happiness. We are only guaranteed that we will be given a chance to obtain it.

True. But if you're giving blood, for example, you have achieved some form of happiness, by satisfying your urges to help others. The consequences to you were outweighed by the satisfaction you gained from doing it.

However, those who do not have friends or family should not be denied the same protections as those with friends and family. This is why the government creates such a social safety net. It catches those people who would otherwise suffer. I think that it is idealistic to think that people will always voluntarily act to help others, as people tend to be inherently greedy.

That does not make it moral, however. I never claimed to have the answers to those who fuck up in life. And I still am not sure if they are even worthy of existance if their only purpose is to detract from others. We have prisons for people who would harm others, even the death penalty, because we do not want such people in our nation, able to harm others. Perhaps we should stick them on an island and let them do what they want, I don't know. But if a persons sole purpose is to detract from peoples lives, they should not be permitted to do so. If there are people like you who would help them, then you can do so, but you must do so on your own, without government coercion.

No, penicillum is a mold, penicillin is the chemical the mold produces to kill bacteria.

Bah. Close enough. But then it's not a drug at all, rather a toxin, and falls under the catagory of low-level chemotherapy, many times less toxic than that used to kill cancer.