fett on 31/3/2010 at 13:40
@Muz - I'm not saying it's smart to ride around without a belt on, nor that it won't cause emotional harm to family members if you get hurt. I'm saying it applies to the pot argument in that the MAIN person it affects is the person using it/not using it, and it's really not anyone else's business. I could just as easily eat myself into fatal diabetes while watching television, ignore a house fire while posting to ttlg, or starve to death because I spent all my cash on pot. Regardless of the substance or excuse I choose, it's still ME that's the problem - not McDonalds, World of Warcraft, or Mary Jane. Granted, pot alters perception, but I could equally argue that people who are addicted to Oreos or Everquest have equally dangerous or unstable psychologies. It's the chicken and the egg debate. I've never smoked pot in my life, simply because I believe in obeying the law, don't want to risk legal trouble from buying it (especially with a family), and prefer not to be "altered." I approach most all "questionable" activities with the same mindset because of my responsibilities and the fact that I've found more natural, and legally sanctioned ways to relax. It's my personality. If someone *needs* dope or alcohol to relax and can't cope without them, chances are, they have deeper coping issues as well. There's a huge difference IMO between people who do it recreationally and those who can't cope without it, and the latter will have tendencies toward self-destructive activities whether they are legal or not. (Setting aside for a moment that occasionally the recreation assists with coping, but I suspect it's typically not the ONLY mechanism being used).
Am I rambling? I feel like I'm rambling.
Matthew on 31/3/2010 at 13:51
You're rambling. Cut down on the pot, dude.
Rug Burn Junky on 31/3/2010 at 13:54
Quote Posted by Kolya
In case of pot there's a group with an agenda pushing the positive aspects and denying the negative who nevertheless claims to provide all the necessary information. Which is what I'm contesting.
In which case you're setting up a strawman, because that doesn't describe smoking advocates. Getting your panties in a twist because people are calling bullshit on you early in this thread doesn't mean you get to just make up shit about their true thoughts on the matter - most of whom readily admit that there are negatives even if we see your examples as hysterical exaggerations.
demagogue on 31/3/2010 at 15:58
Not replying to any specific argument per se, but two issues I've had with the "right to hurt yourself" argument generally is
(1) Lack of knowledge and the "1st & 2nd order consent" problem. The problem is when people choose some risky thing, they may not realize the level of risk they are actually choosing -- If people really understood that, e.g., there are 6 times more deaths from heart attacks than unintentional deaths (all car accidents, all playground accidents, all drunk drivers, etc...), you'd think they'd bitch about fatty foods 6 times more insistently than they bitch about drunk driving. But even being told it's 6 times more deadly, people still find it hard getting it into their heads when they're actually making decisions. Then you add the 1st & 2nd order consent problem, and then you get a situation where by the time a person *does* realize the risk, they aren't in full control of their own capacity to stop (their 1st order "true" desire to stop smoking is inhibited by the 2nd order driving compulsion to smoke). I'm not saying this over-turns the whole "right to choose" argument, far from it since I tend to be libertarian on this kind of stuff myself... But it is a challenge that we should think about to make sure people are getting what they really "want", or even understand themselves what they want, whatever issue it is we're talking about.
(2) For a lot of policies, it's impossible for the gov't (or whoever is arranging people's choices) to be completely neutral in giving them the choices, as if they just line up boxes on a shelf in a platonically neutral way and expect consumers can make a perfect decision about what they want & not be influenced by the way they are lined-up (most people statistically "prefer" the eye-level box). I mean, the way a choice is presented itself influences what people think they want; so the argument that we want to just let people choose what they want begs the question. So if the gov't is forced to tweak people's preferences one way or another anyway, they may as well do it in ways that lead to socially good outcomes, like encouraging people to be more healthy (well, which box would you put at eye-level, the most expensive one, the most healthy, or a statically random one, and which is "better"/more "hands-off"?). I'm trying to think about how this applies to pot, but probably something like, if you're going to make it legal, I think it's okay for the gov't to regulate the selling arrangements to make people think about whatever risks are involved (not that I know what they are). Or something like that... I haven't studied it enough to think it through all the way.
CCCToad on 31/3/2010 at 19:26
So basically you're saying that people are too dumb to be able to make their own decisions?
SubJeff on 31/3/2010 at 20:40
Sadly, that is true of many people.
Namdrol on 31/3/2010 at 20:48
CCCCCCtoad, you telling me you understand the motivations behind every decision you make?
If so, I call liar
dj_ivocha on 31/3/2010 at 21:46
Quote Posted by Aja
They're [the un-belted people] being a burden to the healthcare system by taking up space that might be used for less-stupid people.
I don't know how it is in the States or anywhere else, but in Germany when you are admitted to a hospital, you aren't supposed to leave the premises until you've been officially discharged. If you do and get hurt, your insurance doesn't cover the costs. AFAIK, it's not actually illegal to leave the premises, but most people don't do it anyway, so the denial of coverage seems to be a decent deterrent.
Wouldn't it be similarly effective, if instead of forcing the use of seat belts by law, people were just denied coverage if they did drive un-belted and ended up with most of their bones mashed to pulp?
There would be multiple benefits to this approach - people wouldn't whine about their freedom being impinged upon, the gene pool would get cleared up a bit by all the cool guys and gals that end up winning a Darwin Award and those of them that are just runners-up would instead help the struggling economy by transferring some/most of their money to the health care system ;)
Quote Posted by demagogue
If people really understood that, e.g., there are 6 times more deaths from heart attacks than unintentional deaths (all car accidents, all playground accidents, all drunk drivers, etc...), you'd think they'd bitch about fatty foods 6 times more insistently than they bitch about drunk driving. But even being told it's 6 times more deadly, people still find it hard getting it into their heads when they're actually making decisions.
But the thing is, I can choose not to eat the 6 times deadlier fatty foods, or to (somewhat, at least) avoid the probably equally deadly cigarettes etc., but I can't choose not to get my brains splattered on the road by some drunk driver. At least not if I, you know, want to get out of my house every now and then.
Sorry I can't suggest a better example to convey your point across - I'm sure there is at least one, but I can't think of any right now.
fett on 31/3/2010 at 22:10
I generally agree with you, demagague, but I tend to get edgy when people start talking about "us" making decsions for "them" because "they" don't know what's good for them. Who is the "us" and who is the "them?" My simple mindset is too let people do what they want so long as it doesn't create some far reaching social ill, and let natural selection weed out the idiots (i.e. those that smoke, eat Burger King 3x per day, drive w/o seatbelts, etc.).
What pisses me off about the whole argument is that no one has ever died from smoking pot, yet our medical care system is absolutely crippled by health problems stemming from all the shit people eat, and no one's jumping up and down about Kellog's poisining kids with Pop-tarts and Frosted Flakes. No one is even bitching about the way in which McDonald's targets kids and economically disadvantaged people with their advertising. There are way bigger fish to fry here and I suspect the main objection to legalizing pot is that it's currently illegal. :erg:
Again - I know my posts are real patchy here, having trouble focusing today.
Kolya on 31/3/2010 at 22:59
dj_ivocha: Are you proposing that medics first check if the victim had been belted on the scene of an accident? And if s/he wasn't, they should leave them to their injuries?
