Turn on thread page Beta

Legalise heroin?! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fishfinger Sandwich)
    Who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to tell people that they can't risk such things happening to them?
    I've said it before and i'll say it again: I own my body, and I'll do whatever I want to it. The fact that laws are enforced to "protect people from themselves" is awful, and upsets me.
    If some people are put off ruining their lives by preventative laws, then what's necessarily wrong with that?
    On this logic, all laws are useless and should be repealed, when it's commonly believed that some people don't commit crimes out of fear of getting caught. While to an extent I can understand irritation with the "mother knows best" policy of the legal system, it doesn't benefit either the individual or the state for half the workforce to be addicted to drugs that make them less industrious, cost them money, make them ill and cause problems for themselves and those around them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generalebriety)
    Agreed.
    :ditto:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Poica)
    If some people are put off ruining their lives by preventative laws, then what's necessarily wrong with that?
    On this logic, all laws are useless and should be repealed, when it's commonly believed that some people don't commit crimes out of fear of getting caught. While to an extent I can understand irritation with the "mother knows best" policy of the legal system, it doesn't benefit either the individual or the state for half the workforce to be addicted to drugs that make them less industrious, cost them money, make them ill and cause problems for themselves and those around them.
    Should everyone be forced to be a part of this "workforce"? If they want to make themselves ill, that's their prerogative. Everything in life comes with its downsides. I don't really understand your argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    If some people are put off ruining their lives by preventative laws, then what's necessarily wrong with that?
    On this logic, all laws are useless and should be repealed, when it's commonly believed that some people don't commit crimes out of fear of getting caught. While to an extent I can understand irritation with the "mother knows best" policy of the legal system, it doesn't benefit either the individual or the state for half the workforce to be addicted to drugs that make them less industrious, cost them money, make them ill and cause problems for themselves and those around them.
    When was I drafted into this "workforce" you speak of?
    Surely taking things away from me that I want because they're bad for me and you need me to be in good condition to work is fascism?
    How does drug use not benefit the individual? It makes them fell good. If they choose to damage their health and risk their life by taking a drug, so be it. It's their body and their choice, it doesn't affect you, it's nothing to do with you. How is "it costs them money" a reason to ban drugs? food costs me money too...Also, if drugs were legalised, they'd be cheaper, so it'd cost users less money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You know that the need for the workforce to be in good condition is why the welfare state exists? The state wants and needs its people to be healthy - otherwise people can't work, people sink into poverty and the economy stops working. And from the day you start working you're part of the national workforce.
    You evidently don't understand the meaning of "fascism".
    The drug doesn't benefit the individual because it negatively affects their health. Yeah it makes them feel good, but that isn't the only issue - their relationships, their ability to work, their ability to have children - these are all affected by usage.

    "Food costs me money" - well yes, but you also need food to live. The analogy is flawed.
    And I have nothing personal against drug takers. I'm just debating.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Poica)
    You know that the need for the workforce to be in good condition is why the welfare state exists? The state wants and needs its people to be healthy - otherwise people can't work, people sink into poverty and the economy stops working. And from the day you start working you're part of the national workforce.
    Why is it axiomatic that we must work? If the state wants and needs its people to be healthy, otherwise they can't work, that kind of implies that they expect us to work. I believe it should be everyone's right to choose not to work. Welfare state or not.

    (Original post by Poica)
    The drug doesn't benefit the individual because it negatively affects their health. Yeah it makes them feel good, but that isn't the only issue - their relationships, their ability to work, their ability to have children - these are all affected by usage.
    What if, I dunno, let's say, they don't care?

    Do you drink? Or smoke? Or take caffeine? Naughty workforce monster!

    (Original post by Poica)
    "Food costs me money" - well yes, but you also need food to live. The analogy is flawed.
    Who made that analogy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    You know that the need for the workforce to be in good condition is why the welfare state exists? The state wants and needs its people to be healthy - otherwise people can't work, people sink into poverty and the economy stops working.
    That would be a terrible shame.

    (Original post by Poica)
    And from the day you start working you're part of the national workforce.
    I can quit work whenever I want to. I'm not a slave.

    (Original post by Poica)
    The drug doesn't benefit the individual because it negatively affects their health. Yeah it makes them feel good, but that isn't the only issue - their relationships, their ability to work, their ability to have children - these are all affected by usage.
    So what?
    It benefits them AND damages their health. The two are not mutually exclusive. I drink. I enjoy this (a benefit), but it damages my health (a consequence).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Gosh, the response to the effective collapse of society seems to be "I don't wanna work, I wanna take drugs!!!"
    It is a choice to work. It's simultaneously a choice to be poor and try to live off benefits (practically impossible). If we take this to the logical extreme, then this puts tremendous strain on the state to take care of all of these druggies in both their health and their liveliehood. Can you now see why legalisation might be viewed negatively? Or are you still too liberal, man, to understand this?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    If some people are put off ruining their lives by preventative laws, then what's necessarily wrong with that?
    You'd deprived them of their liberty and forced them into submission to your will. Which is the worst thing you can do to another human being.

    And they're not necessarily ruining their lives, I imagine quite a few people enjoy heroin.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    You know that the need for the workforce to be in good condition is why the welfare state exists?
    There was me thinking it was something to do with compassion and a civilised wish that people weren't dying on our streets from starvation.

    The state wants and needs its people to be healthy - otherwise people can't work, people sink into poverty and the economy stops working. And from the day you start working you're part of the national workforce.
    For their benefit, presumably? Because it's not for the individual benefit of those they seek to oppress for this end.

    (Original post by Fishfinger Sandwich)
    When was I drafted into this "workforce" you speak of?
    Indeed - I am not a slave, not to any owner, and not to the state either.

    (Original post by Poica)
    Gosh, the response to the effective collapse of society seems to be "I don't wanna work, I wanna take drugs!!!"
    It is a choice to work. It's simultaneously a choice to be poor and try to live off benefits (practically impossible). If we take this to the logical extreme, then this puts tremendous strain on the state to take care of all of these druggies in both their health and their liveliehood. Can you now see why legalisation might be viewed negatively? Or are you still too liberal, man, to understand this?
    If your idea of society is tied to the slavery of the British people, I say good riddance to it.

    If we can't afford the welfare state, so be it - do something about it. But do not interfere with people's liberty - the welfare state is supposed to be our servant, not vice-versa.

    It's like banning sky-diving because the NHS is a bit strapped for cash.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    You'd deprived them of their liberty and forced them into submission to your will. Which is the worst thing you can do to another human being.

    And they're not necessarily ruining their lives, I imagine quite a few people enjoy heroin.
    See...any of my other posts. You seem to hold liberty over the greater good. As long as you can do what you want, who gives two hoots about anyone else?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Poica)
    See...any of my other posts. You seem to hold liberty over the greater good. As long as you can do what you want, who gives two hoots about anyone else?
    That's not the issue at all. Which other people are involved here? If you choose not to work, you choose not to get into a relationship and hence not to have children, and you generally choose not to have any sort of relationship with anyone who may be affected by you taking heroin, and then you take heroin, where's the selfishness?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    See...any of my other posts. You seem to hold liberty over the greater good. As long as you can do what you want, who gives two hoots about anyone else?
    Liberty is the greatest good - it is the ability to choose what we desire in life.

    Indeed, who does give two hoots about anybody else? Let me pursue my own happiness, and let them too.

    (Original post by generalebriety)
    That's not the issue at all. Which other people are involved here? If you choose not to work, you choose not to get into a relationship and hence not to have children, and you generally choose not to have any sort of relationship with anyone who may be affected by you taking heroin, and then you take heroin, where's the selfishness?
    It would seem Poica believes we owe something to the state simply by being born.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Why would the government want to have anything to do it it?
    By government I mean their policy which influences the laws surrounding the issue, which is integral to the debate. And they obviously do want to have something to do with it, given that they have granted powers to the NHS to supply medicinal heroin to a small minority of dependents. They just need to make this scheme more widespread.
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    There's nothing inherently wrong with drug dealing.
    Well, perhaps not, just as selling my body for prostitution isn't inherently wrong, but it's really more about how we view things, rather than looking at the good or evil of something in a philosophical way - I doubt you'd say that either of those examples are particularly 'good'. Also, the consequences of drug dealing can be quite dire, for example leading to the death of the user as well as other members of the public.
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Only because criminalisation results in hugely inflated prices.
    Nevertheless, if the NHS is allowed to provide free heroin, it gets rid of the crime, regardless of the root of inflation. It is a solution.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    There was me thinking it was something to do with compassion and a civilised wish that people weren't dying on our streets from starvation.
    Nope, nothing to do with it really - just a happy side effect. The working classes turning up to recruit for the Boer War were too substandard.


    Indeed - I am not a slave, not to any owner, and not to the state either
    Not a slave...but kind of a subject.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generalebriety)
    That's not the issue at all. Which other people are involved here? If you choose not to work, you choose not to get into a relationship and hence not to have children, and you generally choose not to have any sort of relationship with anyone who may be affected by you taking heroin, and then you take heroin, where's the selfishness?
    The strain put on the state, which puts strain on anyone still working (in the form of increased taxation) which leads to the destruction of society as we know it. Obviously this is taken to extremes, but you get the picture.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Indeed, who does give two hoots about anybody else? Let me pursue my own happiness, and let them too.
    It's that kind of thinking that I find deeply unacceptable.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Poica)
    The strain put on the state, which puts strain on anyone still working (in the form of increased taxation) which leads to the destruction of society as we know it. Obviously this is taken to extremes, but you get the picture.
    And the alternative is what? That we're forced to work for 40-odd years against our will, because if we dare to put our own hobbies and preferences above the orders of the state, society collapses? Should we really owe the state something just by being born in it? If I die before the age of 22 - the age I'll leave university - then I'll never have had a full-time job either. If I was never born, the same. So why is it that just by being alive, you think I must do whatever benefits the state and not pursue my own happiness, be that in heroin or anything else?

    An alternative argument would of course be my alcohol one. It has the same type of dangerous effects as heroin, but there'd be an equally large uproar if people tried to ban it. Because we have the right to take those risks while drinking alcohol.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generalebriety)
    And the alternative is what? That we're forced to work for 40-odd years against our will, because if we dare to put our own hobbies and preferences above the orders of the state, society collapses? Should we really owe the state something just by being born in it? If I die before the age of 22 - the age I'll leave university - then I'll never have had a full-time job either. If I was never born, the same. So why is it that just by being alive, you think I must do whatever benefits the state and not pursue my own happiness, be that in heroin or anything else?
    I'm not saying that. By all means, do whatever makes you happy, and if that is never working and taking drugs all the time, do so. However, if everyone did so, it would cause the collapse of society. This is not due to living, but due to expecting something (i.e. unemployment benefit and the like) from the state. If as a drug taker you never took any money from the state, then that would have no implication on the rest of society. There would only be implications for you, and that's fine by me. But let's face it, if you put drug taking ahead of working you won't have the money for eating, drinking, etc...let alone whatever cost the drug might have. So you'll need money from somewhere. So you'll either take unemployment benefit, or steal things, or prostitute yourself. All of which have negative implications for others.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poica)
    It's that kind of thinking that I find deeply unacceptable.
    What? That we shouldn't stand in the way of someone being happy if they're not doing us any harm?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.