Drug War

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Seriously though, let's play a game. I'm deciding what to do tonight. People expect me to drink, but I don't like to do what people expect, which people also know. Given that, what do people expect me to do tonight? Since both (and neither) choice is correct for me (and because I really don't care at the moment), I draw a card from a deck: red card I will drink, black card I won't. It comes out red.

So we're drinking and you ask me if I want to do 5 shots in a row. I don't really care since it won't affect me much, but I'm in a non-choosing mood (which I frequently am). So I tell you to flip a coin: heads I'll drink, tails I won't.

Now then, thru all those steps and twists of luck my only choices were ones of apathy, yet they instigated actions of randomness. In that way rather or I drink 5 shots or not is still a choice. What is certainly missing, however, is any ability to 'know' my choice, or for it to be decided by anything other than blind luck - once my choices were made.

The choice to do drugs is similar. It is not pre-determined. Neither God, nor the universe set the moment in the book of ages. Yet neither is it totally random, since the individual had the ability to remove choice from the hands of chance.

The matter of predetermination has nothing to do with a lack of choice. You scenario hit it on the head, in cases of apathy indifference, lack on unconscious motivation, one can exercise choice. In such cases we are speaking about something irrelevant to the discussion, whether drug addicts are addicts by choice. For example, why is it there are so many more people making the choice to ruin their lives on drugs in ghettos of our world. It is an accident that so many more people make that choice there. We are not talking about some theoretical mind game you invent to state the obvious. We are talking about drug legalization and related issues and how this absurd idea that people are somehow all equal in whether they choose to take them. I said that people retreat behind the notion of choice for one reason, to escape the realization of their own personal responsibility. In your words, you chose not to care what happens to other people on the pretext they did it to themselves when you had a hand in their decision. So if you prefer, they chose to take drugs to escape the sh!t you chose to dumped on them. Stop and they will too. It's your choice. Now let's see, what is he going to choose?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Seriously though, let's play a game. I'm deciding what to do tonight. People expect me to drink, but I don't like to do what people expect, which people also know. Given that, what do people expect me to do tonight? Since both (and neither) choice is correct for me (and because I really don't care at the moment), I draw a card from a deck: red card I will drink, black card I won't. It comes out red.

So we're drinking and you ask me if I want to do 5 shots in a row. I don't really care since it won't affect me much, but I'm in a non-choosing mood (which I frequently am). So I tell you to flip a coin: heads I'll drink, tails I won't.

Now then, thru all those steps and twists of luck my only choices were ones of apathy, yet they instigated actions of randomness. In that way rather or I drink 5 shots or not is still a choice. What is certainly missing, however, is any ability to 'know' my choice, or for it to be decided by anything other than blind luck - once my choices were made.

The choice to do drugs is similar. It is not pre-determined. Neither God, nor the universe set the moment in the book of ages. Yet neither is it totally random, since the individual had the ability to remove choice from the hands of chance.

The matter of predetermination has nothing to do with a lack of choice. You scenario hit it on the head, in cases of apathy indifference, lack on unconscious motivation, one can exercise choice. In such cases we are speaking about something irrelevant to the discussion, whether drug addicts are addicts by choice. For example, why is it there are so many more people making the choice to ruin their lives on drugs in ghettos of our world. It is an accident that so many more people make that choice there. We are not talking about some theoretical mind game you invent to state the obvious. We are talking about drug legalization and related issues and how this absurd idea that people are somehow all equal in whether they choose to take them. I said that people retreat behind the notion of choice for one reason, to escape the realization of their own personal responsibility. In your words, you chose not to care what happens to other people on the pretext they did it to themselves when you had a hand in their decision. So if you prefer, they chose to take drugs to escape the sh!t you chose to dumped on them. Stop and they will too. It's your choice. Now let's see, what is he going to choose?

I disagree. What I did was point out that even things which seem beyond our control are really subsequent to choices we had already made. I also showed that our choices negate the ability of others to understand our actions.

Are people in poor urban areas more likely to use drugs? Probably. Why? Many reasons - availability, economic factors, different sub-cultures, etc. Can you actually pinpoint it? Probably not. Hell, I could make a VERY strong case that drug use is the result of communities growing beyond the extended family unit without singular artificial homogeneity (such as that provided by a religious institution). Is that always true? No. Might just as easily be a disconnect from our natural environment. *shrug*

Point is that all of those factors can contribute and be true some of the time as influencers, but the absolute choice remains in the hands of the individual. If that were not true then everyone would be doing drugs who shares common environmental factors - but they don't. Why can we look at single family with all siblings of one gender, close in age, and find that only one of them turns to drugs? Is that one genetically inferior? Unlikely. The answer is that choices were made by that individual which put them in the position to choose to do drugs. What about the rural individual who does drugs? I thought it was a ghetto problem? The answer is again, they made a choice. Choice, choice, choice. It's always individual choice.

I've had some crappy times in my life, but I made the conscious choice not to take drugs other than alcohol (and this is knowing a lot about drugs to dissolve misinformation and societal stigmas). Almost everyone I know turned to drugs, yet experienced less hardships previous to the decision. Some had no hardships at all. A couple people I've met have had far worse lives than me. Some did drugs, some didn't. The ONLY constant factor among all of us is that we were all individuals who were endowed with the ability to make choices. The reasons for the choices we made is moot - the key is choice itself.

Edit: I also want to say that if you want this to leave philosophy and get back to the topic we have to address the point and scope of government. Because I believe in the absoluteness of the individual I do not accept a government that tries to takes choice from me. Given that basis I cannot accept a government which makes drugs illegal. If you want to argue that, argue the basis of government, not the basis of drug use. Because legal or illegal, I won't do drugs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Seriously though, let's play a game. I'm deciding what to do tonight. People expect me to drink, but I don't like to do what people expect, which people also know. Given that, what do people expect me to do tonight? Since both (and neither) choice is correct for me (and because I really don't care at the moment), I draw a card from a deck: red card I will drink, black card I won't. It comes out red.

So we're drinking and you ask me if I want to do 5 shots in a row. I don't really care since it won't affect me much, but I'm in a non-choosing mood (which I frequently am). So I tell you to flip a coin: heads I'll drink, tails I won't.

Now then, thru all those steps and twists of luck my only choices were ones of apathy, yet they instigated actions of randomness. In that way rather or I drink 5 shots or not is still a choice. What is certainly missing, however, is any ability to 'know' my choice, or for it to be decided by anything other than blind luck - once my choices were made.

The choice to do drugs is similar. It is not pre-determined. Neither God, nor the universe set the moment in the book of ages. Yet neither is it totally random, since the individual had the ability to remove choice from the hands of chance.

The matter of predetermination has nothing to do with a lack of choice. You scenario hit it on the head, in cases of apathy indifference, lack on unconscious motivation, one can exercise choice. In such cases we are speaking about something irrelevant to the discussion, whether drug addicts are addicts by choice. For example, why is it there are so many more people making the choice to ruin their lives on drugs in ghettos of our world. It is an accident that so many more people make that choice there. We are not talking about some theoretical mind game you invent to state the obvious. We are talking about drug legalization and related issues and how this absurd idea that people are somehow all equal in whether they choose to take them. I said that people retreat behind the notion of choice for one reason, to escape the realization of their own personal responsibility. In your words, you chose not to care what happens to other people on the pretext they did it to themselves when you had a hand in their decision. So if you prefer, they chose to take drugs to escape the sh!t you chose to dumped on them. Stop and they will too. It's your choice. Now let's see, what is he going to choose?

I disagree. What I did was point out that even things which seem beyond our control are really subsequent to choices we had already made. I also showed that our choices negate the ability of others to understand our actions.

Are people in poor urban areas more likely to use drugs? Probably. Why? Many reasons - availability, economic factors, different sub-cultures, etc. Can you actually pinpoint it? Probably not. Hell, I could make a VERY strong case that drug use is the result of communities growing beyond the extended family unit without singular artificial homogeneity (such as that provided by a religious institution). Is that always true? No. Might just as easily be a disconnect from our natural environment. *shrug*

Point is that all of those factors can contribute and be true some of the time as influencers, but the absolute choice remains in the hands of the individual. If that were not true then everyone would be doing drugs who shares common environmental factors - but they don't. Why can we look at single family with all siblings of one gender, close in age, and find that only one of them turns to drugs? Is that one genetically inferior? Unlikely. The answer is that choices were made by that individual which put them in the position to choose to do drugs. What about the rural individual who does drugs? I thought it was a ghetto problem? The answer is again, they made a choice. Choice, choice, choice. It's always individual choice.

I've had some crappy times in my life, but I made the conscious choice not to take drugs other than alcohol (and this is knowing a lot about drugs to dissolve misinformation and societal stigmas). Almost everyone I know turned to drugs, yet experienced less hardships previous to the decision. Some had no hardships at all. A couple people I've met have had far worse lives than me. Some did drugs, some didn't. The ONLY constant factor among all of us is that we were all individuals who were endowed with the ability to make choices. The reasons for the choices we made is moot - the key is choice itself.

Edit: I also want to say that if you want this to leave philosophy and get back to the topic we have to address the point and scope of government. Because I believe in the absoluteness of the individual I do not accept a government that tries to takes choice from me. Given that basis I cannot accept a government which makes drugs illegal. If you want to argue that, argue the basis of government, not the basis of drug use. Because legal or illegal, I won't do drugs.

I said that the notion of choice is profoundly important to the ego's capacity for self flattery. I said that our motivations are unconscious. You demonstrated both points in this post. You do not know what cause what or why one in a bad situation reacts one way or another is similar or worse conditions another. But if you knew more about your own unconscious motivations you would know more about others. I claim that my knowledge of what motivates me is perhaps deeper than yours. If that is a fact than I will know more about what motivates others than you will and I will be in a better position to know if what we do is the result of the unconscious than you too. I am telling you what I see. You do not believe it. I have told you why I think you don't. You are proud in an egotistical way about how you think you have chosen. I don't think you are better than others for that because I think you had to choose as you did. I don't think you need a cool ego to be great. I congratulate you on what you have done that is good for you but I don't think anything is subtracted if it wasn't choice. We will have to agree to disagree, I think, because I can't undo what I see and what I think you do not and can't as yet.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic
Total legalization with appropriate regulation (similar to current alcohol and tobacco regulations). The anarchy of decriminalization will not solve the problems caused by prohibition, i.e. increased crime and overdose deaths due to inconsistent quality/dosage.

That's not very classical liberal of you Vic. Liberties are best secured by allowing the market to run free, like some raging beast; and we don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Total legalization with appropriate regulation (similar to current alcohol and tobacco regulations). The anarchy of decriminalization will not solve the problems caused by prohibition, i.e. increased crime and overdose deaths due to inconsistent quality/dosage.

That's not very classical liberal of you Vic. Liberties are best secured by allowing the market to run free, like some raging beast; and we don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.

Doesen't clasical liberalism have any protection against market excess?

 

[Moonbeam]

I guess my point on choice is that we can make choices on what we are conscious of but are influenced by what we are unconscious of. So while we choose, what we choose is influenced by factors we don't understand. To me that is not real choice when we are pushed invisible factors. Some of them are very powerful.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


I hate sin taxes just the same. Why shouldn't drinkers and smokers be allowed to have more money in their pocket?

Because they cost society in additional health care when they inevitably get sick because of their choices.

Hey, good idea. Lets have a fat tax, a cholestoral tax, a tax on people that don't go to college, a tax on people on welfare, a tax on people that use food stamps, a tax on people that use medicare/medicaide, a tax on illegal aliens, etc... they all make choices that cost us tax payers money. Lets just send all of our money to the government, they know how to spend our money much better than we do, lets just call it a "workers paradise". You are a socialist moron and I hope to god that no one like you ever gets any power in this country.

Edit - In reference to the poll, let people do whatever they hell they want to do to their own bodies, if they want to kill themselves with heroin, crack, etc... its fine by me.

By simply removing smoking and drinking, health utilization could be reduced by 25 percent.
Other studies have shown that 10 percent of the population accounts for 75 percent of the nation's health care costs and the high cost people tend to be smokers and alcohol abusers.

On the basis of these studies, it is conservatively estimated that smoking, alcohol and drug use account for 33 percent of the medical care expenditures or $300 billion per year.

Link

Smoking and drinking costs us all big.

Whats your point? Lets just remove anything that harms us, then we will have absolutely no health care costs.

When you find a way to remove smoking and drinking let the world know, you might win a nobel peace prize.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


I hate sin taxes just the same. Why shouldn't drinkers and smokers be allowed to have more money in their pocket?

Because they cost society in additional health care when they inevitably get sick because of their choices.

Hey, good idea. Lets have a fat tax, a cholestoral tax, a tax on people that don't go to college, a tax on people on welfare, a tax on people that use food stamps, a tax on people that use medicare/medicaide, a tax on illegal aliens, etc... they all make choices that cost us tax payers money. Lets just send all of our money to the government, they know how to spend our money much better than we do, lets just call it a "workers paradise". You are a socialist moron and I hope to god that no one like you ever gets any power in this country.

Edit - In reference to the poll, let people do whatever they hell they want to do to their own bodies, if they want to kill themselves with heroin, crack, etc... its fine by me.

By simply removing smoking and drinking, health utilization could be reduced by 25 percent.

Other studies have shown that 10 percent of the population accounts for 75 percent of the nation's health care costs and the high cost people tend to be smokers and alcohol abusers.

On the basis of these studies, it is conservatively estimated that smoking, alcohol and drug use account for 33 percent of the medical care expenditures or $300 billion per year.

Link

Smoking and drinking costs us all big.

Nice article. Not a single reference or mention of any kind of methodology. Just a bunch of numbers we're supposed to assume are correct.

Here's one, alcohol and drugs actually make the country money. I don't have any facts to back that up, but I'll assume it's true. I've got as many facts to back up my claim as that "article". :roll:

 

[BoberFett]

I'm trying to find any data to back up that absurd claim other than "It's true, trust us." My guess is that when a patient comes in and is asked during admission if they drink alcohol and say yes, the hospital stay is checked "Alcohol related." If you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly accept it but I have yet to find any factual information about where those numbers come from.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Total legalization with appropriate regulation (similar to current alcohol and tobacco regulations). The anarchy of decriminalization will not solve the problems caused by prohibition, i.e. increased crime and overdose deaths due to inconsistent quality/dosage.

That's not very classical liberal of you Vic. Liberties are best secured by allowing the market to run free, like some raging beast; and we don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.

Doesen't clasical liberalism have any protection against market excess?

It's debatable, and it depends on who you ask.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Total legalization with appropriate regulation (similar to current alcohol and tobacco regulations). The anarchy of decriminalization will not solve the problems caused by prohibition, i.e. increased crime and overdose deaths due to inconsistent quality/dosage.

That's not very classical liberal of you Vic. Liberties are best secured by allowing the market to run free, like some raging beast; and we don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.

Doesen't clasical liberalism have any protection against market excess?

Of course it does. Harm is harm. If someone steals from you, or defrauds you, the government stepping in those cases of "market excess" is not protecting us from ourselves, but from others, by securing our rights from the abuses of others, which is the very reason we have government in the first place.
The problem with both prohibition and decriminalization is that the government is unable to perform this protection. One can't exactly complain to the authorities when one is engaged in the buying and selling of contraband. Thus, people are stolen from, killed, and defrauded without recourse or protection. That's anarchy, not a free market.

However, simply put, fitzov's troll above demonstrates that he knows nothing about liberalism, and should keep his mouth shut on the subject from here on. Liberties are secured by the protection of inherent rights, and not through the marketplace. A free market is symbolic of a free people, and a people cannot be free without one, but it is not what makes a people free.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Total legalization with appropriate regulation (similar to current alcohol and tobacco regulations). The anarchy of decriminalization will not solve the problems caused by prohibition, i.e. increased crime and overdose deaths due to inconsistent quality/dosage.

That's not very classical liberal of you Vic. Liberties are best secured by allowing the market to run free, like some raging beast; and we don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.

Doesen't clasical liberalism have any protection against market excess?

It's debatable, and it depends on who you ask.

It's not debatable. That's like saying that it's debatable whether or not classical liberalism allows murder (murder for hire would just be another "market excess," right?).

:roll:

 

[fitzov]

Beam...don't listen to Vic's rhetoric. Instead, read this and then decide for yourself whether a true classical liberal would be against decriminalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Total legalization with appropriate regulation (similar to current alcohol and tobacco regulations). The anarchy of decriminalization will not solve the problems caused by prohibition, i.e. increased crime and overdose deaths due to inconsistent quality/dosage.

That's not very classical liberal of you Vic. Liberties are best secured by allowing the market to run free, like some raging beast; and we don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.

Doesen't clasical liberalism have any protection against market excess?

It's debatable, and it depends on who you ask.

Then maybe both of us should ask Vic

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Beam...don't listen to Vic's rhetoric. Instead, read this and then decide for yourself whether a true classical liberal would be against decriminalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire would imply legalization, which I support, not decriminalization. A free market is a legal market, not an illegal but ignored-and-swept-under-the-rug black market.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov
Beam...don't listen to Vic's rhetoric. Instead, read this and then decide for yourself whether a true classical liberal would be against decriminalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire would imply legalization, which I support, not decriminalization. A free market is a legal market, not an illegal but ignored-and-swept-under-the-rug black market.

I think most people can read here Vic. Why not let them find out for themselves without putting your editorial piece along side it? Afraid of something?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov
Beam...don't listen to Vic's rhetoric. Instead, read this and then decide for yourself whether a true classical liberal would be against decriminalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire would imply legalization, which I support, not decriminalization. A free market is a legal market, not an illegal but ignored-and-swept-under-the-rug black market.

I think most people can read here Vic. Why not let them find out for themselves without putting your editorial piece along side it? Afraid of something?

I have an inherent dislike for lies and disinformation like what you are spreading.

Decriminalization is keeping drugs illegal, but not enforcing the law. A collapse of the rule of law with no protection of rights. In other words, anarchy. Nothing could be more contrary to liberal ideals.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov
Beam...don't listen to Vic's rhetoric. Instead, read this and then decide for yourself whether a true classical liberal would be against decriminalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire would imply legalization, which I support, not decriminalization. A free market is a legal market, not an illegal but ignored-and-swept-under-the-rug black market.

I think most people can read here Vic. Why not let them find out for themselves without putting your editorial piece along side it? Afraid of something?

I can read but I don't always understand what I read. Now I am trying to figure out what is the dif between legalize and decriminalize. Then there are all these fancy words like classical liberal and free murkest and lazy fairs where I thought I could go to have a good time. I got's to learn myself how you guys talk to make heads or tails of this stuff.

 

[fitzov]

Decriminalize:

to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation <decriminalize the possession of marijuana>

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...urceid=Mozilla-search&va=decriminalize

who is the liar now? asshat

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Decriminalize:

to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation <decriminalize the possession of marijuana>

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...urceid=Mozilla-search&va=decriminalize

who is the liar now? asshat

Odd that is not what you posted earlier. :roll:

Originally posted by: fitzov
Legalization means that the drug would be regulated, like alcohol. Decriminalization means that there would be no criminal penalty for using the drug.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Seriously though, let's play a game. I'm deciding what to do tonight. People expect me to drink, but I don't like to do what people expect, which people also know. Given that, what do people expect me to do tonight? Since both (and neither) choice is correct for me (and because I really don't care at the moment), I draw a card from a deck: red card I will drink, black card I won't. It comes out red.

So we're drinking and you ask me if I want to do 5 shots in a row. I don't really care since it won't affect me much, but I'm in a non-choosing mood (which I frequently am). So I tell you to flip a coin: heads I'll drink, tails I won't.

Now then, thru all those steps and twists of luck my only choices were ones of apathy, yet they instigated actions of randomness. In that way rather or I drink 5 shots or not is still a choice. What is certainly missing, however, is any ability to 'know' my choice, or for it to be decided by anything other than blind luck - once my choices were made.

The choice to do drugs is similar. It is not pre-determined. Neither God, nor the universe set the moment in the book of ages. Yet neither is it totally random, since the individual had the ability to remove choice from the hands of chance.

The matter of predetermination has nothing to do with a lack of choice. You scenario hit it on the head, in cases of apathy indifference, lack on unconscious motivation, one can exercise choice. In such cases we are speaking about something irrelevant to the discussion, whether drug addicts are addicts by choice. For example, why is it there are so many more people making the choice to ruin their lives on drugs in ghettos of our world. It is an accident that so many more people make that choice there. We are not talking about some theoretical mind game you invent to state the obvious. We are talking about drug legalization and related issues and how this absurd idea that people are somehow all equal in whether they choose to take them. I said that people retreat behind the notion of choice for one reason, to escape the realization of their own personal responsibility. In your words, you chose not to care what happens to other people on the pretext they did it to themselves when you had a hand in their decision. So if you prefer, they chose to take drugs to escape the sh!t you chose to dumped on them. Stop and they will too. It's your choice. Now let's see, what is he going to choose?

I disagree. What I did was point out that even things which seem beyond our control are really subsequent to choices we had already made. I also showed that our choices negate the ability of others to understand our actions.

Are people in poor urban areas more likely to use drugs? Probably. Why? Many reasons - availability, economic factors, different sub-cultures, etc. Can you actually pinpoint it? Probably not. Hell, I could make a VERY strong case that drug use is the result of communities growing beyond the extended family unit without singular artificial homogeneity (such as that provided by a religious institution). Is that always true? No. Might just as easily be a disconnect from our natural environment. *shrug*

Point is that all of those factors can contribute and be true some of the time as influencers, but the absolute choice remains in the hands of the individual. If that were not true then everyone would be doing drugs who shares common environmental factors - but they don't. Why can we look at single family with all siblings of one gender, close in age, and find that only one of them turns to drugs? Is that one genetically inferior? Unlikely. The answer is that choices were made by that individual which put them in the position to choose to do drugs. What about the rural individual who does drugs? I thought it was a ghetto problem? The answer is again, they made a choice. Choice, choice, choice. It's always individual choice.

I've had some crappy times in my life, but I made the conscious choice not to take drugs other than alcohol (and this is knowing a lot about drugs to dissolve misinformation and societal stigmas). Almost everyone I know turned to drugs, yet experienced less hardships previous to the decision. Some had no hardships at all. A couple people I've met have had far worse lives than me. Some did drugs, some didn't. The ONLY constant factor among all of us is that we were all individuals who were endowed with the ability to make choices. The reasons for the choices we made is moot - the key is choice itself.

Edit: I also want to say that if you want this to leave philosophy and get back to the topic we have to address the point and scope of government. Because I believe in the absoluteness of the individual I do not accept a government that tries to takes choice from me. Given that basis I cannot accept a government which makes drugs illegal. If you want to argue that, argue the basis of government, not the basis of drug use. Because legal or illegal, I won't do drugs.

I said that the notion of choice is profoundly important to the ego's capacity for self flattery. I said that our motivations are unconscious. You demonstrated both points in this post. You do not know what cause what or why one in a bad situation reacts one way or another is similar or worse conditions another. But if you knew more about your own unconscious motivations you would know more about others. I claim that my knowledge of what motivates me is perhaps deeper than yours. If that is a fact than I will know more about what motivates others than you will and I will be in a better position to know if what we do is the result of the unconscious than you too. I am telling you what I see. You do not believe it. I have told you why I think you don't. You are proud in an egotistical way about how you think you have chosen. I don't think you are better than others for that because I think you had to choose as you did. I don't think you need a cool ego to be great. I congratulate you on what you have done that is good for you but I don't think anything is subtracted if it wasn't choice. We will have to agree to disagree, I think, because I can't undo what I see and what I think you do not and can't as yet.

Right now I'd never be able to convince you otherwise I'm sure, but I do have a pretty good handle on philosophy/psychology. I just disagree with most of it, at least for myself. I think the most solid support of my stand is what I said earlier about "what will people expect me to do". Being aware of different schools of psychological thought I spend a great deal of time analyzing my choices and actions from various preconceptions. In the end I always come back to free will being greater than physiological disposition. I can support it through your own attitude as well by noting that by choosing to so fully support ego identity theories, unconscious motivators, and collective morality conceptions you have, in essence, surrendered choice to that particular coin toss. The CHOICE to do so, however, was yours, as much as the choice not to agree with it in total was mine.

Get back to me after I snag my psych and philosophy degrees and maybe I will be better able to articulate my arguments. Until then I'm content to agree to disagree.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I guess my point on choice is that we can make choices on what we are conscious of but are influenced by what we are unconscious of. So while we choose, what we choose is influenced by factors we don't understand. To me that is not real choice when we are pushed invisible factors. Some of them are very powerful.

Ok, now THAT I can pretty much totally agree with. The difference in my outlook is that we have the choice to become aware of those motivators and compensate for them. In that way, total individual responsibility is maintained.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Right now I'd never be able to convince you otherwise I'm sure, but I do have a pretty good handle on philosophy/psychology. I just disagree with most of it, at least for myself. I think the most solid support of my stand is what I said earlier about "what will people expect me to do". Being aware of different schools of psychological thought I spend a great deal of time analyzing my choices and actions from various preconceptions. In the end I always come back to free will being greater than physiological disposition. I can support it through your own attitude as well by noting that by choosing to so fully support ego identity theories, unconscious motivators, and collective morality conceptions you have, in essence, surrendered choice to that particular coin toss. The CHOICE to do so, however, was yours, as much as the choice not to agree with it in total was mine.

Get back to me after I snag my psych and philosophy degrees and maybe I will be better able to articulate my arguments. Until then I'm content to agree to disagree.

-------------------------

Ok, now THAT I can pretty much totally agree with. The difference in my outlook is that we have the choice to become aware of those motivators and compensate for them. In that way, total individual responsibility is maintained.

Cool. Do do want to say though that what I am saying in my opinion is not something I believe because of philosophy or psychology, subjects about which I know nothing. I hold my opinions from seeing things in myself. I think I could have hundreds of degrees and remain fundamentally self-unaware of how I work. There is a difference between information and understanding, in my opinion.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: slash196
I think the cutoff for legal/illegal is pretty clear: addictiveness. If it's addictive (coke, meth, heroin, speed, etc) then it's a matter of public health and safety; if it's not addictive (LSD, mescaline, cannabis, mushrooms, etc) then it should be legal and regulated. Obviously DUI laws, etc would still be in place to protect public safety, but use of non-addictive substances by adults in their own home should be a matter of personal freedom of choice.

EDIT: I should make a clarification: only drugs that actually impair your motor control should be covered under DUI laws. If there is a statistical link between use of a substance and impairment of driving, it's a matter of public safety. But is smoking a cigarette while driving illegal? No, because nicotine doesn't impair motor functions. What we need is ONE standard for all drugs; anything less is pure hypocrisy.

I find your post hypocritical. You call for one standard, but make subjective distinctions. Cell phones don't impair motor functions, but the process of talking on one changes your abilities/reactions. Just because nicotine doesn't impair motor function doesn't mean it doesn't change driving conditions in some other way (not to mention the number of fires caused by tossed cigarettes and second-hand smoke damage). Other drugs might have similar circumstances.

The same can be said for addictiveness. Just because there's no proven physical addictive properties to pot or other drugs doesn't address rather or not people will do them obsessively. Hence, potheads who destroy their lives. Alcohol is certainly addictive, yet it's legal. Physical addictive qualities are not psychological addictive tendancies but the outcome is the same, hence your distinction is false.

Either people are allowed to do drugs, or they are not. It should be an absolute.

Potheads who destroy their lives? Excuse me while I have a hearty chortle at your expense.


Now then, your post smacks of brainwashed ignorance. Psychological dependency is just that: psychological. There are no withdrawal symptoms, no incentive to continue the drug other than continued enjoyment. The same could be said of cookies. People become psychologically dependent on fatty and sugary foods, and can in fact ruin their lives. Are sugary snacks illegal? No, because when used responsibly and in moderation they cause no harm. Basing your laws on the outliers of population is a terrible way of doing business. To say that all drugs are exactly the same and that legalization is an all-or-nothing proposition is pure tripe. Heroin ruins lives. Crack ruins lives. Pot does not ruin lives. Alcohol and cigarettes both ruin lives, and frankly we'd be better off with these destructive substances being illegal, but so many are dependent on them already that the public outrage would blunt any attempt to rid society of them.

You call me a hypocrite, and yet point out no actual hypocrisy. I suggest the next time you move to impugn my character that you have substantive backing.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Right now I'd never be able to convince you otherwise I'm sure, but I do have a pretty good handle on philosophy/psychology. I just disagree with most of it, at least for myself. I think the most solid support of my stand is what I said earlier about "what will people expect me to do". Being aware of different schools of psychological thought I spend a great deal of time analyzing my choices and actions from various preconceptions. In the end I always come back to free will being greater than physiological disposition. I can support it through your own attitude as well by noting that by choosing to so fully support ego identity theories, unconscious motivators, and collective morality conceptions you have, in essence, surrendered choice to that particular coin toss. The CHOICE to do so, however, was yours, as much as the choice not to agree with it in total was mine.

Get back to me after I snag my psych and philosophy degrees and maybe I will be better able to articulate my arguments. Until then I'm content to agree to disagree.

-------------------------

Ok, now THAT I can pretty much totally agree with. The difference in my outlook is that we have the choice to become aware of those motivators and compensate for them. In that way, total individual responsibility is maintained.

Cool. Do do want to say though that what I am saying in my opinion is not something I believe because of philosophy or psychology, subjects about which I know nothing. I hold my opinions from seeing things in myself. I think I could have hundreds of degrees and remain fundamentally self-unaware of how I work. There is a difference between information and understanding, in my opinion.

I would counter that your opinion IS about psychology and philosophy (and probably sociology as well) despite your lack of training or formal education in these fields.

If someone, a tribesman say, watches the behavior of animals and develops an opinion, that opinion is about zoology/biology/animal husbandry/etc. It doesn't matter if he was trained in it or reached the conclusions on his own. Categorically that is where the information falls. The source of the information actually doesn't even affect the validity of that information, despite common desire to see underlying training. What proper training in these disciplines can do is make the process faster, easier, and better organized.

I would agree that having information does not, in and of itself, lead to application of that information. There are other factors, most of which are psychological and philosophical. 😎 For instance, exposing someone with a dualist perspective to information which is counter to their constructions of reality will not broaden their viewpoints, it will cause cognitive dissonance. That same information, presented in the same manner, will reinforce the thinking of a relativist, and broaden the understanding of a committed relativist.

There is much debate about how such development occurs, but most agree that exposure to information can only speed the process. In this way even though obtaining degrees doesn't directly lead to self-awareness it increases the probability (as well as ease and speed) that such growth will occur. An underdeveloped area of this field (in my opinion) is the interplay between cognitive and developmental psychology - specifically how intelligence affects personality and developmental models. That's actually going to be the focus of my studies when I get to them.