|
 |
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:44:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/30/2010 2:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> 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 am using reading sources that agree with the medical community, many
> of which have to deal with the problems caused, not necessarily the
> actual rehab, and others of which deal, quite clinically, with the
> chemistry involved, without dealing directly with people at all (except
> in some cases, to confirm their findings, after concluding that the
> effect exists).
That's a long sentence. :-) "Agree with the medical community" or "are
written by the medical community" (or a combination of the two)? The
first would be a form of confirmation bias, the second would not. :-)
> Yeah, got one out of three.. Point of all of them is that we "do" put
> rules in place to protect people. How about another one, "We don't sell
> that to you without a prescription." I.e., unless someone else says you
> *need it*, not just because you personally *think* you need it. Wait..
> isn't that just what you are sort of advocating for some of this stuff?
> lol
I'm advocating controls, sure.
>>> etc., are all about
>>> protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
> Lot of it is about perception of "harm". We get in this argument a lot
> on some blog with libertarians. Do you put in place laws, regulations
> and rules, **in case** someone does something wrong, or wait until they
> do, then try to step in and fix the problem, after real damage has
> **already** been done? They say, "wait", or worse, "it will fix itself
> in this case, if you let it", the other side say, "Yeah, but, by the
> time it *fixes itself* 2 million people are out of work, most of the
> companies are hoarding money, and you people **still** insist its all
> going to a) fix itself, and b) we don't need laws, or regulations, to
> keep it from happening again."
Another very long sentence. :)
I'm not an advocate or a fan of total deregulation (so I'd fail as a
libertarian); I've seen what total deregulation does. So has everyone
here - for a reminder, just look at the Gulf of Mexico for what happens
when the laws are written by people with a vested interest in being as
regulated "as little as possible, and not at all would be preferred".
> We know what open drug use *has* done in
> cases where it took place, because people get stoned, drive, go to work,
> etc., all the damn time, and get other people killed/hurt.
That's about the "after" issues, which yes, if they break the law, they
should be punished for. I've never said "don't punish those who put
others in harm's way". But I have a hard time criminalizing, say,
smoking pot because it's *smoking pot*. If they get in a car and get
stopped, throw the book at them. If they stay at home, leave them alone.
> Its the whole
> fracking reason why companies do drug tests now.
s/fracking/frakking - one of these times you'll get it right. ;-)
> They can't afford to
> have someone *on* the drug, on the job, because of the *real* problems
> it causes. And that doesn't mean "within 24 hours", it means, "without
> *any* of it in the persons system, since people differ, and the guy that
> took a hit two days ago *may* be as big a hazard, from withdrawal, and
> the other guy that just took one five minutes ago, and is seeing green
> pixies, telling him to run over the floor manager with a fork lift.
And an employer has the right to do that. And if someone who smokes pot
can't get a job, that's their own problem. They can decide to look for
employment elsewhere or they can get clean.
> frakking
See? You got it right. :-) <SCNR>
> drugs, a basic principle has to be to *minimize* the possible causes of
> that behavior, which means, not letting people get high, *then* go to
> work in that condition, or drive on the street, etc. Which, in the case
> of drugs, generally means to not let them do them at all,
> recreationally.
The problem is the "then go to work in that condition", not the "letting
people get high". So the focus needs to be on the effect, not the
prospective cause, because there are plenty of other options they could
follow if they get high. They could sleep for the next 3 days, too.
>> And when they get dangerous, they should be stopped.
>>
> Again. Meaningless.
I disagree.
> You can't even tell when some mentally ill people
> will become dangerous.
Sure, but we're not talking about the mentally ill. We're talking about
recreational drug users.
>> 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.
>>
> But, once it is a compulsion, their initial "voluntary" choice is
> rendered mute from that point on.
s/mute/moot - pet peeve of mine. Mute means something entirely different.
Their initial voluntary choice is the important point. If it becomes
problematic enough for them, they can seek treatment or assistance to
break their addiction. Many people *do* break their addictions.
Sometimes it's easy; sometimes it's not. Nobody ever said life would be
easy, nor that living with the consequences of your actions would be.
> If I was also suggesting stopping hang gliding, or skying, you would
> have a point. What I am talking about is the equivalent of someone
> suffering damage that leads them to, without real control, start hang
> gliding into buildings, or skying through crowds. The initial decision
> to hang glide, or sky, is not at issue, even if the *reason* for the
> damage, by pure accident, was a result of slamming into a building, or
> skying through a crowd of people. Its not relevant to the problem.
"skying" - I'm not sure what that is.
But when someone starts engaging in that kind of behaviour, they then
have the choice to either listen to what others say ("dude, that's messed
up, you need to get some help") or decide on their own that that's
destructive and dangerous behaviour, or they can be taken into custody at
that time for their illegal activity. Saying "the drugs made me do it"
is an excuse.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
