Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Discussions on Drug Prohibition and Death Penalty

Discussions on Drug Prohibition and Death Penalty

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by Valentin Dimitrov

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: Valentin Dimitrov on May 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





I. ON DRUGS:In the comment section of this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNnnA_ZRdgI Discussion no.1 
dudtube: he ends his speech saying that consuming drugs makes people passive for dictatorships (which is an absurd fallacy), therefore he advocates an authoritarian legislation to prevent that. makes PERFECT sense! 
me: You are confusing dictatorship, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. He advocates for amore or less authoritative state against welfarist totalitarianism. Marx once said somethingabout opium of the masses - now we have a State that serves the rich and in satisfying themasses with cannabis shuts their mouths.I think personally that one who smokes deserves to be left to suffer consequences when theyshow. If ppl want to smoke, they should go live in the jungle, in society we help each other.
 dudtube: I'm not confusing anything. His argument is anti-dictatorship (which is anauthoritarian system) and his solution is authoritarian. doesn't make sense at all.you cannot even demonstrate what you're saying. show me evidence that people that smokecannabis are not politicaly aware. I do smoke and I'm engaged.your last sentence doesn't make any sense. smoking cannabis doesn't interfere in helping others.if you think it does, you'll have to demonstrate it cientifically as well. 
me: As to helping - I said that ppl who smoke deserve to be denied access to healthcare,since they damage it themselves. 
dudtube: ps: as a libertarian, I question the very existence of a big public healthcare system, but your argument specifically discriminates cannabis/drugs users, which is totally arbitrary,since there are inumerous other products and life-style aspects that are unhealthy. 
me: Ok, sorry for having mistaken you for something else.As a continental conservative I think that we should protect the collective's traditional moral beliefs against the caprice of individuals. Cannabis is a threat to the family, the family is the keyto the existence of society (it moderates b/w big society and single individual) and its suprememoral centre, therefore cannabis should be illegal.I mean, whether one gets healthcare or not, one's family WILL help them because it loves them.Discussion no.2 [ongoing]
 jwats100: Why is it a threat to families? You really can't understand that prohibition isworse? Someone who smokes weed can go to jail, ruining their path in life in the process.Explain to me what would happen to the responsible cannabis user, who doesn't go to jail, that justifies prohibition.
me: because the family will have to take care of the person who damaged their health. evenresponsible users on the long term, especially when they get old, are damaged by it. (don't tellme that young ppl are responsible since they get drunk so often, and it is absurd to say that it is possible for them to be responsible in all countries.) 
 jwats100: I do think there should be an age minimum. (although I currently would be under that age, My unbiased opinion says there should be one.) Without getting into how the damagesof cannabis use is relatively small, I think that if someone has a drug problem, their familiesshould take care of them. We will always have drug problems; but it should be a health issue,not a criminal justice issue. Jail does not fix their drug problem or health problems. 
me: Well an age minimum is something that hardly works - just like with alcohol, kids haveit bought for them anyway. But the issue is that a person who has health issues because of having taken pleasure in smoking, knowing that it may cause damage, that person is selfish... 
 jwats100: But a minimum age works better. If I want weed, its one text away at any time.But alcohol? Sure I could raid my parents stuff, but I could never take too much, or enough toget really drunk for that matter. They would notice. Other than that, I would have to be at afriends house. Again, it really isn't that damaging, but in the circumstances that it is, I agree that person is selfish if they continue to smoke. So put them in the cage? You do realize medievaltimes have ended right? 
me: You can always get it from your friends who are 18 or above. I am not as decided aboutalcohol prohibition as about weed, as weed is more easily abused.As to the Middle ages - people do crime and are nuisance to society and/or their family, but not put them in jail? You do realize modern times are far from ideal, even far from good, comparedto Middle ages, where there was less crime, ppl weren't manipulated by silly ads, and no need of "liberation" from fictional things. 
 jwats100: is that I want to put criminals, including those on booze and weed in jail, andkeep as many law abiding citizens, including those who drink and smoke weed out of jail. Youwant to put criminals in jail as well as law abiding, pot smoking citizens, and keep everyoneelse out. If I break no law, work, pay taxes, and smoke weed when I deem it appropriate. Whyshould I go to jail, knowing all the implications that jail has? Even if it harms my health. if itdid, its a health issue. not criminal. 
me: Being law abiding AND pot smoking is incompatible. Smoking pot is law-breaking, por-smokers are criminals. Now, laws are not always moral and sometimes even violate naturallaw. But here it is not the case. The West became such a great civilization since Roman times because of its moral virtue. Pot damages you and someone else'll have to take care of you oneday. Doing that is immoral and should be punished. You can drink when it's appropriate, but being high or (really) drunk is immoral.
 jwats100: I know they are criminals now because that the law, but I'm saying make it so itsnot against the law therefore allowing them to smoke without any stigma attached.If you think that being drunk (but not really drunk) is at times OK then you really don't have a problem with people being high, you just don't have a clear understanding of its effects onhealth. Sort of drunk is way worse than being REALLY high on your health. What do you think it does that would require future healthcare aid? 
me: I was stupid to put the word "really". I think it's morally OK to drink. In the West,alcohol was always legal, and a part of tradition. But it isn't the case with cannabis.And cannabis, a part from making people behaving like when drunk, causes brain damage. 
 jwats100: Do you think that alcohol does not cause people to get hurt, killed, or getdiseases. If you think it doesn't then you live under a rock. If you think it does; that people haveto care for loved ones who did this damage to themselves drinking and you think that is morallyOK then go look up the word hypocrite 
me: Alcohol does damage, but it is already legal and it's unrealistic to think of a prohibition. Nevertheless it is immoral to get drunk, and the public behavior it causes should be punished. I personally think not drinking alcohol is good, but it is so deeply rooted in European traditionthat only individuals decide. But the Babylon we have today should make us think about puttinglimits to it.Peter about it:http:// hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.u k/2012/03/a-serious-answer-to- a-silly-argument.html II. ON DEATH PENALTY:In the comment section of this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppFgc-Hobw0 Me, before discussion:Playing moderate, I still conclude that the anti-DP argue badly. DP was abolished for badreasons - headonism. The state must protect the community against malicious individuals whodo not do their duty not to murder. DP has always worked, non-DP not yet. Retributive justice,order and traditional values should be revived before we decide if DP can be deserved. You doX, you deserve Y, like in stores.In Christianity, the thief next to Christ who repented did it thanks to his DP. But Pharisees weresick, when they took perverse pleasure in DP.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->