On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:39:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/29/2010 1:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> PMFA, but where did you get your medical degree from?  If you're
>>>> going to make assertions like that, I'd like to see them backed up by
>>>> some sort of credentials that show you have some expertise in the
>>>> field. (And before you ask, no, I don't have such expertise).  Or a
>>>> cite from a reputable source would suffice as well.
>>>>
>>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of
>>> these things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific
>>> magazines, or which issues.
>>
>> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation
>> bias?
>>
> How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that take
> it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away, and every
> medical professional says that the people they treat never lose the
> addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or thing that
> helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias? 

Assumption:  You're only reading sources that agree with something you 
already think.  Again, just a question.

>>> I did say most. And, as I pointed out, it also depends on the person's
>>> own biology. Some people seem to be damn near completely immune to
>>> addiction. Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as
>>> caffeine.
>>
>> So basically, people need to be protected from themselves?  I don't buy
>> that.  Making mistakes is part of life, and not something people should
>> be insulated from.  Experience is one of the best teachers out there.
>>
> We protect people from themselves all the damn time. Everything from, "
> "Don't drive drunk, or we will arrest you.", 

That's protecting the public, not the individual.

> to, "You can't swim in the
> sewage pond, so we put big warning signs and a fence around it.", 

That's perhaps the best example.

> to,
> "You vehicle **must** have working turn signals.", 

That's about the public, not the individual.  My turn signal doesn't tell 
me anything, it's a way of telling others what you're about to do.

> etc., are all about
> protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.

I disagree.

> Experience, **a lot of the time** won't teach you anything, because in
> most of those cases you will be either dead, or permanently disabled, by
> experiencing it. So, don't give me the whole, "We shouldn't protect
> people from themselves.", BS. This is only true for the things *you*
> think we shouldn't do that for. I am certain there are plenty of things
> that you do think we should, a whole host of laws and rules to do so,
> and like most people that want to treat drug use as a "special" category
> of, "Stupid things people do to themselves.", you just don't like *it*
> being in that category, for no reason that I, personal, can see as
> rational.

Sure, and if I drive my car into a tree and die as a result, that's my 
own fault (assuming I was in control at the time, of course).  When I 
broke my leg rollerblading, the other person was scared out of her mind 
that I was going to sue - so much so, that she sent a friend over to 
apologise to me.  I told her to tell her friend that while she was going 
the wrong way in the rink, it was my own fault because I shouldn't have 
been on a rink with *experienced* people (and designated as a "speed 
rink" my second time out on rollerblades.

Most people would've been looking for a lawyer.  I was injured, I had a 
broken leg.  It was my own damned fault and nobody else's.

It inconvenienced me and it inconvenienced my family.  That's the price 
we all paid.  <shrug>  That's life.

>>> Sound all well and good, but you are presuming that the criminal
>>> system always catches these people, and no one that is sitting at home
>>> doing that didn't do anything wrong to get their hit.
>>
>> I'm presuming nothing.  I meet about once a month with a representative
>> of the SLC police department, and he and I have very interesting chats
>> about how police work is actually done and how effective it is.
>>
>> One of the things I take away from the conversations time and again is
>> that if they didn't have to spend so much time dealing with non-violent
>> offenders, they might actually be able to catch more people committing
>> crimes against people&  property.
>>
> I don't dispute that, and have said so, but the problem is that you are
> classing people that are, "not in their right minds", by choice or
> otherwise, in the same category as, "non-violent", in some cases. We
> also prefer to arrest someone who is intentionally acting in a way that
> *could* cause someone else harm. As I said, people on certain drugs do
> not just all, "sit around at home, being stoned", they go places, they
> do it in public, they get into their heads, while in a state of mind
> where they *can't* make rational decisions, to do things that get
> themselves and others killed. 

And when they get dangerous, they should be stopped.

> By your logic, it would be perfectly fine
> to let mental patients out, even if classed as, "potentially dangerous",
> because that particular day they are not "acting" dangerous, never mind
> that they could turn at any moment, due to their condition.

Um, no, that's something different.  Someone who's schizophrenic is quite 
different from someone who *voluntarily* takes crack cocaine.  And now 
you'll argue that the addiction makes it a compulsion, not voluntary, but 
they voluntarily started taking it.

> As for effectiveness.. Watched something a while back on the subject of
> law enforcement and [...]

Interesting, but not really relevant to the discussion.

>>> Any other way of looking at it only appears *sane* if you assume
>>> neither you, nor anyone you know, will *ever* be the victim. Which one
>>> could argue is either arrogant, or stupid.
>>
>> Nobody every said life was safe.  Or fair.
>>
> No, but one of the functions of society is to make it safer, and at
> least try to make it fairer (even if some people still seem to want to
> make it as unfair as possible, but that is a whole other issue..)

There's safer and fairer when it's in the public interest, and then 
there's "safer and fairer" which removes all the risk from life entirely, 
and that latter removes the responsibility and consequences of actions 
from individuals and places it on society.  "It's not *my* fault I shot 
the store clerk, it's *society's* fault that they didn't protect the 
store clerk from me as effectively as they should have."

Jim

Post a reply to this message