>is intoxication ethical?
No.

Tell it as it is and things will become clearer.

Also do not pollute other people's air (cigarettes).

>>18540465
>they are associated with so much crime like drunk driving, addiction and mine fields like sexual consent
knives are also associated with stabbings, should we ban knifes?
>they affect people's ability to consent and decision-making,
only after initially consenting to start drinking.

>>18540465
To say that drugs make you make bad decisions you have to judge the decisions and blame them on the drugs
drunk driving usually involves someone driving somewhere sober knowing they will have to drive home drunk
i personally would never do that because i live in the first world where i can take public transport without getting stabbed by niggers

>>18540465
1. Is it ethical to ban consenting, responsible adults from intoxicating themselves just because other people act undesirably under the influence or have worse life outcomes as a result of substance abuse? The vast majority of people don't drive under the influence or beat their spouse after having a drink.
2. Does banning a substance remove all the market demand for it? If not, will we not just move all the profit from drug sales to criminals while society bears the costs? Would the Mafia in America have spread like a cancer across the entire nation if the gigantic bootlegging industry wasn't handed to them?
3. Can banning a substance for puritan reason indirectly lead to more harm as a result of promoting a culture of ignorance on drugs, leading to unsafe and irresponsible drug use among those who still do drugs regardless of its legal status?

Drug policy usually falls into a handful of camps, like:
Ideologically for: the government has no right to regulate what substances a person willingly puts in their body
Ideologically against: drugs are poison, drugs and drug-users need to be fought wherever possible
Pragmatically for: a total ban on drugs is unfeasible, we would be better off if we regulated the use and sale of drugs and instead focus on harm reduction
Pragmatically against: drugs aren't unethical on their own but are connected to too many negative outcomes therefore they should be banned or heavily regulated

>>18540572
>1. Is it ethical to ban consenting, responsible adults from intoxicating themselves
Well, is it? I'm not seeing an argument.

>2. Does banning a substance remove all the market demand for it? If not, will we not just move all the profit from drug sales to criminals while society bears the costs?
Does banning child porn remove all the market demand for it? If not, will we not just move all the profit from CP to criminals while society bears the costs?

>3. Can banning a substance for puritan reason indirectly lead to more harm as a result of promoting a culture of ignorance on drugs, leading to unsafe and irresponsible drug use among those who still do drugs regardless of its legal status?
Can banning heroin for puritan reasons indirectly lead to more harm as a result of promoting a culture of ignorance on heroin among preschoolers, leading to unsafe and irresponsible heroin use among them?

Pro-drug policy usually falls into a handful of camps, like:
Ideologically for: I can heckin' do whatever I want, dad. I'm gonna inject heroin and chop off my dick whether you like it or not!
Ideologically against: society has a right to regulate what activities and lifestyles are condoned on its premises
Pragmatically for: a total ban on drugs is unfeasible so we might as well accept heroin junkies on every street corner
Pragmatically against: a total ban on drugs is unfeasible but we might as well try to prevent heroin junkies on every street corner

>>18540576
>Well, is it? I'm not seeing an argument.
The argument makes itself depending on whether you think it's right to punish well-behaving people for the actions of misbehaving people.
>Does banning child porn remove all the market demand for it? If not, will we not just move all the profit from CP to criminals while society bears the costs?
These things are obviously not comparable. An adult deciding to smoke a joint and then go for a walk in the forest is a victimless crime whereas the production of CP isn't.
>Can banning heroin for puritan reasons indirectly lead to more harm as a result of promoting a culture of ignorance on heroin among preschoolers, leading to unsafe and irresponsible heroin use among them?
We already prohibit children from voting, driving, drinking, smoking, doing military service and so on. There's already a clear precedent throughout all of society that certain behaviors are only for adults, so why do you pretend that the argument is whether we should inject newborns with heroin instead of what the rules should be like for adults?

>>18540586
>punish well-behaving people for the actions of misbehaving people.
You mean the poor drug peddlers? No one else is necessarily being punished.

>These things are obviously not comparable.
Then make a better argument.

> so why do you pretend that the argument is whether we should inject newborns with heroin instead of what the rules should be like for adults?
I'm not pretending anything. I'm using your own exact logic. Make better arguments.

By all objective, statistical accounts the impact drugs have are disastrous. The consequences of alcohol alone cause billions in damages every year, not to speak of all the subjective suffering through drunk-driving deaths, domestic abuse, etc. It is absolutely not a "victimless crime".
The ethical argument against drugs is very easy, both on deontological and utilitarian grounds.

>>18540588
>You mean the poor drug peddlers? No one else is necessarily being punished.
I'm talking about the people I specifically mentioned in my post, i.e responsible adults who want to intoxicate themselves. If they want to but are not allowed to then they are being punished as the result of actions of other people.
>>18540588
>Then make a better argument.
I literally made an argument right after it. One is a victimless crime, the other isn't.
>I'm not pretending anything. I'm using your own exact logic. Make better arguments.
Why did you bring up children doing heroin when I have specifically been talking about what the rules should be for adults this entire time?

>>18540594
>I'm talking about the people I specifically mentioned in my post, i.e responsible adults who want to intoxicate themselves.
A drug ban isn't punishing them.

>I literally made an argument right after it
I used your own literal logic. You immediately told me it's fallacious and tried to change the subject. Make a better argument.

>Why did you bring up children doing heroin
Why not? Your argument implies that's a concern.

>>18540596
>A drug ban isn't punishing them.
It is restricting their freedom to do something. That is a punishment.
>I used your own literal logic. You immediately told me it's fallacious and tried to change the subject. Make a better argument.
It isn't my logic and I've explained why, twice now - nor have I tried to do debate bro shit by saying fallacy and I have not tried to change the subject. If you're just going to say "make a better argument" over and over then we're at an impasse here.
>Why not? Your argument implies that's a concern.
When and where?

>>18540597
>It is restricting their freedom to do something. That is a punishment.
Society is also restricting their freedom to drive without a license. That is heckin' punishment! Man, you're really bad at this and you don't learn from your mistakes at all.

>It isn't my logic
You're right. It isn't your logic. It's a regurgitated talking point you've been trained to mindlessly repeat without spending so much as 20 seconds thinking about its logical implications.

>>18540602
>Society is also restricting their freedom to drive without a license.
If you want to argue that people should have the freedom to drive without a license then you're free to do so. We already restrict their freedom to drive under the influence. A person can view both those restrictions are reasonable while still thinking it's unreasonable an adult isn't allowed to smoke a joint before going on a stroll in the woods.
>You're right. It isn't your logic. It's a regurgitated talking point you've been trained to mindlessly repeat without spending so much as 20 seconds thinking about its logical implications.
Not really. You just made a bad comparison and when I pointed out why it was bad you resort to talking about irrelevant shit. You're a very boring person. You obviously seem to have strong beliefs on the topic but you don't seem to be willing or capable of comprehensively voicing them, you only do passive aggressive jabs at strawmen.

Also, where's the example I asked for?

>>18540609
So you're saying it's reasonable to punish people for the irresponsible behavior or bad drivers?

> You just made a bad comparison
I didn't make any comparison. I applied your logic verbatim. Are you off your meds?

>drinking alcohol is like producing child porn

>>18540616
>So you're saying it's reasonable to punish people for the irresponsible behavior or bad drivers?
I think it's reasonable to prevent me from driving while I am shitfaced drunk. I don't think it's reasonable to prevent me from getting drunk at all because someone else decided to get behind the wheel while drunk.
>I didn't make any comparison. I applied your logic verbatim. Are you off your meds?
You brought up the production of CP as a comparison. It isn't valid comparison because it is not a victimless crime, unlike the example I've provided.

Where's the other example I've asked for twice now? Did you just make shit up earlier or why are you unable to provide it?

>>18540621
>starts mumbling about drunk driving for no explicable reason
You're definitely off your meds.

>You brought up the production of CP as a comparison.
That didn't happen at any point.

>>18540623
>You're definitely off your meds.
Not at argument. DUI was brought up in the post you replied to for a valid reason.
>That didn't happen at any point.
Literally brought up here >>18540576

>>18540623
>You're definitely off your meds.
should he be on them?
you know "meds" has caused people to make bad decisions

>>18540628
You're 70 IQ and mentally ill. You might have been 80 IQ and mentally stable before you started using drugs. You're a living example of why drugs should be restricted.

>>18540630
Not an argument. It is embarrassing that you have such strong beliefs on a topic that you are unwilling to argue in earnest for even a moment.

>>18540628
jfc how filtered are you? he's not saying drugs are like child porn, he's saying your reasoning can be used to defend anything illegal so it's bad reasoning

>>18540633
I have no strong beliefs on this topic, unless the topic is retarded mongoloids like you being taught how to read and write and given enough vocabulary to express their deformed opinions on social issues. I feel very strongly that education should be reserved for 125+ IQs. Come to think of it, maybe the same should be true of drugs.

>>18540634
>he's not saying drugs are like child porn
I'm not saying that's what he's saying.
>he's saying your reasoning can be used to defend anything illegal so it's bad reasoning
Which is why I provided a reason why drug use can be defended in a way CP can't.
>>18540638
You care enough to be here and argue about it on the weekend, so you must value it above doing other more important things.

>>18540641
You're mentally ill.

>>18540638
have you been tested?

>>18540643
OK bitch nigga. Come back to the thread when you have a real argument.

>>18540641
you literally keep claiming he's comparing the two and defending your retarded reasoning on the grounds that drugs are not like cp

>>18540649
He is comparing the two as far as I'm concerned. He's essentially asking why child pornography shouldn't be legal if drug use is legal, as if they are equivalent. He could just elaborate or clarify his position but he refuses to, when pushed on anything he'll just respond with insults. If you read the exchange do you think he comes across as a person arguing in good faith?

>>18540641
>>he's not saying drugs are like child porn
>I'm not saying that's what he's saying.

>>18540657
>He is comparing the two as far as I'm concerned

You're mentally ill.

>>18540657
i elaborated it for you and you're still getting filtered, i think i'm starting to get brainlet fatigue from you as well

>>18540660
>>18540666
Two separate things are being talked about here: the concept of regulating things and the acts themselves. Drugs are not the same as CP, therefore one shouldn't compare the regulation of drugs with the regulation of CP is what I'm saying.

>>18540669
>Drugs are not the same as CP, therefore one shouldn't compare the regulation of drugs with the regulation of CP is what I'm saying.
See >>18540634
tell me the specific point where your mind starts to shut down when you read that

>>18540670
The second half. In my mind I provided a good example of why my reasoning can be used to defend drug use (victimless crime) but not CP (not a victimless crime).

Anyway, to clarify my position:
I don't think blanket bans on drugs work well because they do little to address the demand for drugs, and they come with the added downside of transferring the revenue from drug sales to criminals while society still has to foot the cost of drug abuse. Even if the same question (why should we ban anything ever if it doesn't make it go away) can be asked for CP I don't think the same reasoning can be used because a five year old getting raped is (in my opinion) morally reprehensible compared to an adult taking some ecstasy before going to a rave. Victim vs victimless crime, minor vs adult. I don't think people have a right to rape children but I don't see the harm in adults using substances responsibly (and should therefore have the right to, with caveats) and would prefer a world where responsible drug use is more prevalent than irresponsible drug use.

>>18540685
your braindead reasoning can be used wherever the structure of a situation matches the structure your argument relies on. you literally lack the capacity for abstract thought

>>18540693
Alright, we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

>>18540697
we'll just have to agree to disagree that you're mentally challenged and don't know how to argue (objective reality being on my side in this case)

>>18540700
Having a bad day? Why are you so mad?

>>18540593
>The consequences of alcohol alone cause billions in damages every year
It costs billions in lost productivity due to hangovers.

>>18540701
was the doctor having a bad day when he told your mommy you have mental retardation?

>>18540465
Solomon said that if you honor God with you riches and first fruit then wine will never lack in your house.

>>18540705
You seem unreasonably upset over what's honestly a trivial thing.

>>18540708
you seem unreasonably upset over what's honestly a trivial thing. billions of other people have your condition but still live fulfilling lives. their secret is to stick to matters within their sphere of competence

>>18540693
>your braindead reasoning can be used wherever the structure of a situation matches the structure your argument relies on
NTA but do you suggest his observation should be just ignored because it doesn't stand as an argument? If not, what's the correct way to take it into account, according to the autist master race?

>it's objective reality that selling drugs and producing cp is the same thing

>>18540709
No need to worry about me, I'm doing alright for myself. I'm actually feeling a lot better now, I'll admit I was slightly irritated before but something about your pointlessly hostile attitude made me realize how insignificant this is and my mood improved a lot. I hope things work out for you as well, despite our disagreement.

>>18540710
>NTA but do you suggest his observation should be just ignored
no, i'm suggesting the retard fails to develop it in a way that supports his opinions, so his overall take can be ignored

>what's the correct way to take it into account, according to the autist master race?
not my problem, i was just trying to help him understand what he was getting called out on. for what it's worth, i can tell you "muh criminals will take over the X market if we make it illegal" just isn't a principled objection. maybe you could use it as a side-point in some consequentialist argument but then you have to show it contributes to a net negative effect

>>18540725
cp producers are already criminals if they rape children or contribute to the rape of children where as the drug seller is only a criminal if the drug is illegal

>>18540725
>maybe you could use it as a side-point in some consequentialist argument but then you have to show it contributes to a net negative effect
Like the Mafia expanding massively during prohibition?

>>18540725
>i can tell you "muh criminals will take over the X market if we make it illegal" just isn't a principled objection. maybe you could use it as a side-point in some consequentialist argument but then you have to show it contributes to a net negative effect
Yeah, it's inherently a consequentialist point and I agree it doesn't stand on its own but then why treat it as if it were an argument and apply it out of context?

>>18540753
maybe because he poses it like it's supposed to be an argument in and of itself?

>>18540761
Since you're so smart, what do you think the best arguments for and against drugs are?

>>18540850
i don't bother with human cattle politics. the answer to all such false dilemmas is free association. if you're unhappy living among those who find drug use unacceptable, go live among druggies who share your values

File: deliberatley.png (72 KB, 488x450)

72 KB PNG

>>18540854

>>18541528
you're the one still mad, tough. i enjoy torture-testing retard cognition