XXXXXX

166 results
1
2
3
4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

No, the big three pretty much destroy your body.
MakeMeaSammitch

Why should a person not have the right to destroy their body if they wish?

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"] Why should a person not have the right to destroy their body if they wish?

They should have the right to destroy their bodies, but that doesn't mean that someone else should have the right to help them do it. That's really my big problem with legalization for recreational purposes. If someone comes up to me and begs me to kill him, it most certainly should be a crime for me to actually do it. The fact that he wants me to do it doesn't change that. Just because someone wants me to do something horrible to them doesn't justify me actually doing something horrible to them. And in the same way, someone wanting to fill their bodies with horrible drugs doesn't mean that it should be okay to give it to them. The customer isn't always right. A lot of times the customer is totally wrong, so you totally shouldn't give them what they want. If someone wants to hurt themselves on their own, that's their business. But that sure as hell doesn't mean mean it's okay for you to help them hurt themselves just because they want you to.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Most medication and certain medical treatments carry side-effects. Should doctors only be allowed to help people in ways that are 100 percent guaranteed to carry no adverse effects?VanHelsingBoA64

No. But there are drugs that get pulled from the market all the time because the side effects are worse than previously known. There are drugs that never even make it to the market because the side effects aren't worth the potential benefits. That's evaluated based on the particular drug, not flat out allowing all of them out of some silly philosohpical notions of "it's their bodies, they have a right to poison them if they want to". And even then, that's for medical purposes. It's prescribed by an actual DOCTOR, and one is supposed to have a medical reason to get it, not just "I like the way it feels, man". Maybe I'm wrong, but I wasn't under the impression that this was about legalizing drugs specifically for medicinal reasons. I was under the impression that this thread was about legalizing drugs regardless of the reason.

12 years ago

14937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#155 Saturos3091

Member since 2005 • 14937 Posts

I think with all the misinformed posts in this thread about the effects of hard drugs on the human body and psyche (ignoring the effects of many legal substances on the body as well) it's safe to say we're not ready for legalization, even though legalization would in turn allow these drugs that people are using anyway to be taxed and regulated. The social stigma is far too great to challenge at this point.

12 years ago

6663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 PernicioEnigma

Member since 2010 • 6663 Posts

Why does it matter? Surely anyone willing to risk their health is also going to be willing to risk breaking the law.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Why does it matter? Surely anyone willing to risk their health is also going to be willing to risk breaking the law.PernicioEnigma

Anyone with a compulsion to eat glass and nails (and yes, that's actually something that exists) is gonna find a way to eat glass and nails. That does not mean that it's okay to feed people f***ing glass and nails. Of course, one could also say "yeah, but people who are compelled to eat sharp metal objects are mentally ill. That's different, feeding someone's illness." And yeah...drug addiction is also classified as a disease. Many of them are literally sick, and the compulsion to consume those drugs is the result of their illness.

12 years ago

14937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#158 Saturos3091

Member since 2005 • 14937 Posts

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]wrt to earlier posts of heroin users harming only themselves:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-20327707worlock77

Nobody said that heroin users only harm themselves.

Still it is a misguiding link. There's a lot of missing information in that story, and there's no way we can link it to drug use alone. He also made the claims that heroin will instantly have you physically dependent and that pure heroin (diacetyl morphine) will kill you, even though neither of those is true, so I'm not sure he should be trusted. :P

12 years ago

14937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#159 Saturos3091

Member since 2005 • 14937 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Anyone with a compulsion to eat glass and nails (and yes, that's actually something that exists) is gonna find a way to eat glass and nails. That does not mean that it's okay to feed people f***ing glass and nails. Of course, one could also say "yeah, but people who are compelled to eat sharp metal objects are mentally ill. That's different, feeding someone's illness." And yeah...drug addiction is also classified as a disease. Many of them are literally sick, and the compulsion to consume those drugs is the result of their illness.

Not a fan of assisted suicide, I take it?

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"] Not a fan of assisted suicide, I take it?

Not in general, no. I'm willing to accept that there may be unique and unusual circumstances which warrant it. If it's allowed in particular cases, there should be a process for evaluating whether or not it's okay. But I'm sure as hell against making a blanket rule that ALL assisted suicide should be legal just because it's necessary in a few cases. That kind of stuff should be the exception to the rule, not the norm. If you want to help someone commit suicide, you should have to present a compelling case that you meet the criteria for an exception, rather than just having it be the default position that "it's okay to help someone kill themselves if they ask". There should be doctors there to say that the person is in a sound and rational state of mind. There should be doctors there to say that suicide is the only way to ease the suffering, and there should be a doctor there to actually explain how the person NEEDS assistance and isn't capable of suicide on their own. Yes, there are certain criteria that should be met, and a process for determining if those criteria are met. Not just "hey...they asked you to help kill them, so it's not like you did anything wrong."

12 years ago

14937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#161 Saturos3091

Member since 2005 • 14937 Posts

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"] Not a fan of assisted suicide, I take it?MrGeezer

Not in general, no. I'm willing to accept that there may be unique and unusual circumstances which warrant it. If it's allowed in particular cases, there should be a process for evaluating whether or not it's okay. But I'm sure as hell against making a blanket rule that ALL assisted suicide should be legal just because it's necessary in a few cases. That kind of stuff should be the exception to the rule, not the norm. If you want to help someone commit suicide, you should have to present a compelling case that you meet the criteria for an exception, rather than just having it be the default position that "it's okay to help someone kill themselves if they ask". There should be doctors there to say that the person is in a sound and rational state of mind. There should be doctors there to say that suicide is the only way to ease the suffering, and there should be a doctor there to actually explain how the person NEEDS assistance and isn't capable of suicide on their own. Yes, there are certain criteria that should be met, and a process for determining if those criteria are met. Not just "hey...they asked you to help kill them, so it's not like you did anything wrong."

I agree with you for the most part. The difference with drugs, especially certain hard drugs that do have a purpose like heroin, is that they can be taken in medically safe (and non-addictive) doses. I think that's the reason it's such a grey area for most people and a large part of that is caused by a lack of readily available information about such drugs.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"] I agree with you for the most part. The difference with drugs, especially certain hard drugs that do have a purpose like heroin, is that they can be taken in medically safe (and non-addictive) doses. I think that's the reason it's such a grey area for most people and a large part of that is caused by a lack of readily available information about such drugs.

And I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with them being legally available only by prescription. Yes, there are medical reasons for heroin. Yes, there are non-addictive doses. In such cases, I'd not have a problem with it being legally sold, provided that the person can get a doctor's prescription. I'd want an actual doctor putting his ass on the line to say that it's being sold for a good reason, I'd want an actual doctor having some say in the dosage. What I am NOT fine with is the whole "anyone can buy that $*** over the counter, for any reason" type of thing. LOTS of drugs are legal with a prescription and shouldn't be legal for general use. If stuff like heroin and cocaine is ever legalized, it should be the exact same way. I don't agree with users and addicts being arrested and jailed, but I sure as $*** don't think that many drugs are the kind of thing that should be sold for general recreational purposes without any input from an actual doctor.

12 years ago

2683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#163 mingmao3046

Member since 2011 • 2683 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Saturos3091"] I agree with you for the most part. The difference with drugs, especially certain hard drugs that do have a purpose like heroin, is that they can be taken in medically safe (and non-addictive) doses. I think that's the reason it's such a grey area for most people and a large part of that is caused by a lack of readily available information about such drugs.

And I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with them being legally available only by prescription. Yes, there are medical reasons for heroin. Yes, there are non-addictive doses. In such cases, I'd not have a problem with it being legally sold, provided that the person can get a doctor's prescription. I'd want an actual doctor putting his ass on the line to say that it's being sold for a good reason, I'd want an actual doctor having some say in the dosage. What I am NOT fine with is the whole "anyone can buy that $*** over the counter, for any reason" type of thing. LOTS of drugs are legal with a prescription and shouldn't be legal for general use. If stuff like heroin and cocaine is ever legalized, it should be the exact same way. I don't agree with users and addicts being arrested and jailed, but I sure as $*** don't think that many drugs are the kind of thing that should be sold for general recreational purposes without any input from an actual doctor.

so your against personal freedom

12 years ago

2176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#164 GIJames248

Member since 2006 • 2176 Posts

I cannot really think of any reason why not. Maybe limit kid's accessibility, at least without parental consent.

12 years ago

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"] Why should a person not have the right to destroy their body if they wish?MrGeezer

They should have the right to destroy their bodies, but that doesn't mean that someone else should have the right to help them do it. That's really my big problem with legalization for recreational purposes. If someone comes up to me and begs me to kill him, it most certainly should be a crime for me to actually do it. The fact that he wants me to do it doesn't change that. Just because someone wants me to do something horrible to them doesn't justify me actually doing something horrible to them. And in the same way, someone wanting to fill their bodies with horrible drugs doesn't mean that it should be okay to give it to them. The customer isn't always right. A lot of times the customer is totally wrong, so you totally shouldn't give them what they want. If someone wants to hurt themselves on their own, that's their business. But that sure as hell doesn't mean mean it's okay for you to help them hurt themselves just because they want you to.

Ok.

12 years ago

MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#166 MakeMeaSammitch

Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
No, the big three pretty much destroy your body.
worlock77

Why should a person not have the right to destroy their body if they wish?

It depends tbh.

In this case no, those drugs destroy your body, and no it's not just you who you affect. Your family feels the effect, the government has to support you, as does the already overburdened medical system.

12 years ago

166 results
1
2
3
4

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment