Hard Drugs Ruining Society

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think it's our ignorant response to hard drugs that's ruining society. But the problem has a cause that's deeper and it stems from the belief that we can legislate choice.
Legislation places limits (or at least it should) on how we relate to others. It cannot and must not place limits on how we treat ourselves.
A father that drinks and ruins his life and screws up the support structure of his family is a jerkoff. But that is not an area of life that can be legislated. However, if he beats his wife or his kids in a drunken stupor, then the law can and should step in. He's crossed the line limiting how he relates to others. The penalties should be doubled if he was drunk to make a point about responsibility. And if the crime was commited against a person subsumed by the implied 'trust umbrella', the penalty should be doubled again.
If a person is drunk and drives and hits and kills someone, the penalty should be double what it would be if he/she were to deliberately run someone down.
What I wish.... is that we'd stop legislating choices and focus more on what we do to people that cross the line that limits human interaction.
The fundamental fallacy that we live under is that it is illegal to blow one's brains out. All of the other stupidities arise from this fallacy. I own my life and every second of it. By saying it's ok to legislate this fundamental right, we give over ownership of ourselves to 'the government' and we take a giant step into the land of lala.
People choose to live or die every day. The problem comes when a John Wayne Gacy doesn't follow through on his choice.

[Tarantism]

i agree, mostly...

EXCEPT.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The problem comes when a John Wayne Gacy doesn't follow through on his choice.

the problem is when John Wayne Gracy runs out of money and kills his buddy tim for a cheap TV set.

no laughing matter.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Well, the point about Gacy is that we put him to death because of his choice to die, which he made the moment his first victim died. We didn't kill Gacy, Gacy did. The law just carried it out for him because his life was the only one he had the right to take. That is not the way it's looked at, but it should be.

[Tarantism]

yeah i see, but you are taking for granted that he who commits the crime does not turn himself in, or plan to get caught. anyone who commits a murder or crime it is said should have already "accepted the punishment", but if every criminal did that, then we wouldnt need police to catch them, they would simply turn themselves in...

the whole idea of fugitives is that they dont want to accept the consiquences of their actions and therefore run away. Gracy did not kill himself, we killed him. it was bounty for his actions, and thereofore there was nothing wrong with putting him to death, but you cannot say that he made the choice to die. he made the choice to kill and then he got caught.

sayign that it was his choice is just a way to make people feel better for putting people to death.

[Loricybin]

Originally Posted by (((tartanism)))

yeah i see, but you are taking for granted that he who commits the crime does not turn himself in, or plan to get caught. anyone who commits a murder or crime it is said should have already "accepted the punishment", but if every criminal did that, then we wouldnt need police to catch them, they would simply turn themselves in...

the whole idea of fugitives is that they dont want to accept the consiquences of their actions and therefore run away. Gracy did not kill himself, we killed him. it was bounty for his actions, and thereofore there was nothing wrong with putting him to death, but you cannot say that he made the choice to die. he made the choice to kill and then he got caught.

sayign that it was his choice is just a way to make people feel better for putting people to death.

i completely agree

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tartanism:

sayign that it was his choice is just a way to make people feel better for putting people to death.

Oh for sure that is a benefit, but can you see how that statement implies a guilt for being selfish? And, in today's moral climate, that is considered wrong. So we reject the thought behind it for the wrong reasons and hence cannot find a solution to the problem. Do you see how that statement ends up reinforcing the idea that we do not own our own lives?
The bottom line is that if society legislates choice, we do not own our own lives. If you don't own that, you don't own anything. Why that is so hard for folks to understand, I don't know.
If one is lost in the woods and there is only one path out, if that path is blocked by illusion, one will remain lost forever.

[Drip Curl Magic]

all I can say is, humans will be humans. ya know? We all play a roll in society. We are all equals, but the way nature works, we can't allow ourselves to be equal. No matter what, there will always be the cranksters hiding in the midst of society. There will always be the rule enforcers standing out and telling people what to do... and there will always be the realistic people who just go with the flow... because we know that nothing will ever fix any of it.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I think it's our ignorant response to hard drugs that's ruining society. But the problem has a cause that's deeper and it stems from the belief that we can legislate choice.
Legislation places limits (or at least it should) on how we relate to others. It cannot and must not place limits on how we treat ourselves.

There are true points here. The War on Drugs and its invasion of doctors offices and prescription writing has helped the illegal drug trade more than they imagined, I am sure. Many persons have seen the problems with pain management and other associated medications (whether their own or family members) and trying to get help from a doctor. There is a huge number of doctors who fear being called up on the carpet to explain why they have written such prescriptions.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The penalties should be doubled if he was drunk to make a point about responsibility. If a person is drunk and drives and hits and kills someone, the penalty should be double what it would be if he/she were to deliberately run someone down.
What I wish.... is that we'd stop legislating choices and focus more on what we do to people that cross the line that limits human interaction.

With the meth problem, you have people creating toxic waste, causing explosions, ruining rental units, etc. This in addition to the same problems you associated with intolerable drunk behaviors and the suggestion of doubling the penalties for those drunks who step over this societal line of acceptable behavior.

The only way I see to get the "stop legislating choices" is to remove the DEA from doctors offices. But there is also those persons who are getting scripts for these medications and turning around to sell them which is a huge part of why the DEA is involved. Rush Limbaugh? The numbers presented in the media for the amount of oxy he obtained is way too much for an one person.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/li....ap/index.html

and this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/el....ap/index.html

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The fundamental fallacy that we live under is that it is illegal to blow one's brains out. All of the other stupidities arise from this fallacy. I own my life and every second of it. By saying it's ok to legislate this fundamental right, we give over ownership of ourselves to 'the government' and we take a giant step into the land of lala.

Its only illegal to survive an attempt to blow ones brains out.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Cedars:

Its only illegal to survive an attempt to blow ones brains out.

Thanks, I needed that. Also, thanks for the feedback.
The thing that scares me the most is the number of and variations of fallacies that society lives under. You start looking and quickly draw back from its immensity.
I remarked to my wife last night about the nature of the commercials on tv, about how violent and strident and revolting they're becoming. I don't advocate limits on that stuff. On the bright side they do provide a barometer of the 'societal mind' and what it's focusing on. Not lookin good. Perhaps someday soon that 'mind' will wake up and look at itself and not like what it sees - and change. I wish it would hurry.
And yet we still carry on. Humans are amazingly resilient creatures.
What would it be like without all of the encumbrances, roadblocks and blindnesses - and the consequent fears?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Drip_Curl:

because we know that nothing will ever fix any of it.

lol. that's way too easy. You imply that the state we are at right now isn't any better than when it was considered SOP to rampage into a neighboring country, rape and pillage and then impale the vanquished on sharpened stakes. I'm not saying we're far above that, but I think we've left that behind us. It's a good thing that someone took steps to put a stop to the way things were. You seem to think that we can't progress any farther. Given the number of fallacies most of us live under remains constant, I agree. So, we need to get rid of them one at a time. Laws that dictate choice are very good targets.
The only way it could (the impalings) reoccur is if everyone thought that 'that' and 'this' aren't different at all and gave up in hopeless, blind apathy.