I don't like this thing. Let's ban it! Watch

KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by chazwomaq)
I don't think the argument against drugs, alcohol strength and price is that someone doesn't like them. It's that they cause harm. To the users mainly, but also to other people - druggies comitting crime, drunk people causing violence etc.

You might disagree with the idea that they do cause the harm (indeed on harm principle alcohol should surely be banned if cannabis is!).

You might disagree that the state should protect people from themselves.

But harm is the principle is the argument.

Topless women I give you.
Drug users don't all commit crime. Get your head out of The Daily Mail. Sure, heroin users might do, but then if they were treated as they should (as people with an illness), this problem would be greatly reduced. Also, robbery is already a crime. Banning anything that might lead someone to steal is a terrible idea.

And I don't get the argument that drugs should be banned because they harm the users. Sure, many drugs should be illegal to sell. But I don't think they should be illegal to posses in small amounts for one's own use. The idea of putting someone in prison for harming themselves is utterly draconian. It's like jailing someone for slitting their wrists or attempting suicide.
0
reply
Puddles the Monkey
  • TSR Community Staff
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by chazwomaq)
You should check out Leviticus. The Lord doesn't like a whole lotta things..

And what about homosexuality in many countries of the world?
Sorry for being ambiguous - I was asking more about things like the examples in the OP.
0
reply
Mahnaz96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
I agree with you OP. Can we unban the ban of the veil in France then?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by Mahnaz96)
I agree with you OP. Can we unban the ban of the veil in France then?

Posted from TSR Mobile
As much as I dislike the veil, I agree it should not be banned. I think it says a lot though that France's ban is seen as being specifically on the veil. In fact, the ban was on wearing any face covering headgear in public places, not specifically on the burqa and niqab. The reason they did this was not out of intolerance of Islam, it was so they could identify people better for security reasons.

I believe this is totally Orwellian though, so I oppose it.
0
reply
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by Mahnaz96)
I agree with you OP. Can we unban the ban of the veil in France then?

Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm all for unbanning the ban, so long as people who wear face coverings agree to remove them without fuss under any and all circumstances requiring them to do so on private property (like shops or whatever) or for security reasons.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
Do things ever actually get banned just because people don't like it? :holmes:
that rambler chap was banned for rambling as nature intended
0
reply
Puddles the Monkey
  • TSR Community Staff
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by the bear)
that rambler chap was banned for rambling as nature intended
I asked a stupid question.

There are no stupid questions.

0
reply
Mahnaz96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)
I'm all for unbanning the ban, so long as people who wear face coverings agree to remove them without fuss under any and all circumstances requiring them to do so on private property (like shops or whatever) or for security reasons.
Agreed Thanks for your answer.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by n00)
Well that can't be right because banning drugs doesn't reduce harm it increases it, so it must just be some bull**** ***** come up with to look less like *****.
(Original post by KingBradly)
Drug users don't all commit crime. Get your head out of The Daily Mail.
(Original post by cole-slaw)
The fundamental point is that I have an unassailable right to my own body. I own it, it is my property. You do not own it, and neither do the government. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do to it as long as I don't harm anyone else.
I don't think you got my point. I was not making the argument that drugs cause harm. I was pointing out that is the basis that banners use to make their arguments, not that they don't like drugs.
0
reply
n00
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by chazwomaq)
I don't think you got my point. I was not making the argument that drugs cause harm. I was pointing out that is the basis that banners use to make their arguments, not that they don't like drugs.
I think i did.
0
reply
cole-slaw
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by chazwomaq)
I don't think you got my point. I was not making the argument that drugs cause harm. I was pointing out that is the basis that banners use to make their arguments, not that they don't like drugs.
I understand their arguments, I just fundamentally disagree with them. Firstly, drugs don't automatically cause harm, and secondly, even if they did, what the **** business is it of theirs?
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by n00)
I think i did.
OK, perhaps you did. It was hard to read your meaning with the asterisks.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by cole-slaw)
I understand their arguments, I just fundamentally disagree with them. Firstly, drugs don't automatically cause harm, and secondly, even if they did, what the **** business is it of theirs?
The automaticity is surely a red herring. Assault rifles don't "automatically" cause harm, but there's a good argument for banning them.

You could argue that if the state has to pay for the harm caused via treatment, then it can have a say in regulating the activity. And if others are harmed, then it is the state's business.
0
reply
President Putin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
Let's ban people from trying to ban things :yy:
Wouldn't that mean that this forum would be left completely unmoderated?

I mean, I'm completely down for that. :bl:
0
reply
cole-slaw
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
(Original post by chazwomaq)
The automaticity is surely a red herring. Assault rifles don't "automatically" cause harm, but there's a good argument for banning them.

You could argue that if the state has to pay for the harm caused via treatment, then it can have a say in regulating the activity. And if others are harmed, then it is the state's business.
Assault rifles shoot other people, drug users take the drugs themselves. Crucial difference.

Don't disagree with your second paragraph - a Pigouvian tax is entirely justifiable.
0
reply
_Dreamville_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
Let's ban people from trying to ban things :yy:
Doesn't that include yourself?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Puddles the Monkey
  • TSR Community Staff
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by ZSHNZ)
Doesn't that include yourself?

Posted from TSR Mobile
That was the joke.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
(Original post by cole-slaw)
Assault rifles shoot other people, drug users take the drugs themselves. Crucial difference.
Well, that example was to illustrate that "automatic" is not the key issue. Self-harm vs other-harm is, and we agree on that. I think you could still argue about the ethics of saving people from themselves, especially with psychoactive and addictive substances though.

Either way, it's not to do with liking or not liking the activity, which was the point of the OP.

My personal position is much more drug-liberal than current UK policy FWIW..
0
reply
n00
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
(Original post by chazwomaq)
OK, perhaps you did. It was hard to read your meaning with the asterisks.
Ah ok. Ban the *******s ****ing swear *****ng filter!1!!!

I don't believe that those in favour of drugs prohibition can possibly truly care about the harms drugs cause as banning them does nothing to prevent harm, it significantly increases harm, it seems they use the pretence of caring about the harms caused by drugs in an attempt to mask their prejudices.
1
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
(Original post by chazwomaq)
The automaticity is surely a red herring. Assault rifles don't "automatically" cause harm, but there's a good argument for banning them.

You could argue that if the state has to pay for the harm caused via treatment, then it can have a say in regulating the activity. And if others are harmed, then it is the state's business.
There is a fundamental difference between guns and drugs. Guns are designed to cause harm, drugs are not.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (443)
37.83%
No - but I will (88)
7.51%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.83%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (560)
47.82%

Watched Threads

View All