Page 1 of 4
#1
I think most of us, to some degree support the idea that what consenting adults do, assuming it harms nobody else, is their business and authority shouldn't force against their will.

So a common example is homosexuality. What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business. To have laws against homosexuality and shit is ridiculous.

Then a lot of us here in the Pit think all drugs should be legal. A person has the right to do whatever they want to do to their own body, as it doesn't inherently harm other people. It's their decision and their risk. Most of us probably don't think smoking should be illegal just because of the health risks. If people want to do it, knowing the risk, then that's their business.

So, first thing; With drugs; Should the level of danger of a certain drug ever make a difference in whether or not it should be illegal? Say their was a drug that was extremely addictive, and extremely harmful, very life-threatening, etc. far more than any other hard drug we know, and it offered a high. Should the substance be illegal?

And to carry it further; Do you think that consenting adults should be able to partake in any business they choose? Perhaps two people playing russian roulette? Two men dueling with pistols?

So the main question for this thread: Is there a point where you say "This shouldn't be allowed, even though all people participating know the risks and choose to do it of their own consent and free will?" And if there is, why that point?
#5
Quote by The Madcap
So, first thing; With drugs; Should the level of danger of a certain drug ever make a difference in whether or not it should be illegal? Say their was a drug that was extremely addictive, and extremely harmful, very life-threatening, etc. far more than any other hard drug we know, and it offered a high. Should the substance be illegal?


No. I think extremely addictive drugs should be taxed more heavily, though.

And to carry it further; Do you think that consenting adults should be able to partake in any business they choose? Perhaps two people playing russian roulette? Two men dueling with pistols?



No, because coercion will always play a big role. It's one thing if your friend pressures you into dropping acid with him. It's another if he pressures you to let him shoot you in the face.
PM me for newts
Last edited by StewieSwan at Feb 19, 2012,
#6
Quote by Life Is Brutal
Didn't you make this exact thread once before?

I was going to check and find it, but then I saw that he had 17 pages worth of threads.

What the actual fuck.
#8
Quote by The Madcap
A person has the right to do whatever they want to do to their own body, as it doesn't inherently harm other people.
I disagree with this. People who create catastrophes DUI or who fry their brain to the point of no return will need healthcare; a service that oftentimes you get "for free" because of tax money.

That being said, I'm all for that sort of healthcare, but I draw the line somewhere. I don't want to pay taxes for some now comatose idiot who DUI. Same goes for say, somebody who self-mutilates.

So I agree with Zoot on this one. It's the same reason nobody should have the right to commit homicide.

As for the Russian Roulette example, same thing. Sure, after you're dead, the authorities can't really punish you, but you're affecting the lives of the people that care about you.
You are now using UG Black.
You are now using UG Classic.


Listening to: New York Voices, as well as the new Vulfpeck record (fuck it's so good)


You throw like a girl. A girl who is great at baseball and has a fiery passion for the sport.
Last edited by Wolfinator-x at Feb 19, 2012,
#9
People should be allowed to do what they want if there is mutual consent (and if no one else is harmed but the involved parties). If two dumbasses want 20 paces at dawn, let 'em shoot it out. It's no sweat off my back, and I'd relish the chance to fight my enemies to the death without legal repercussion.
Last edited by MakinLattes at Feb 19, 2012,
#11
What do you guys think of consensual euthanasia?

Some guy in NZ has got in deep trouble because his Mother insisted that he ended her suffering.
#12
Quote by devourke
I was going to check and find it, but then I saw that he had 17 pages worth of threads.

What the actual fuck.


Someone has to make threads
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
#13
Quote by Life Is Brutal
Didn't you make this exact thread once before?
Similar, but much more specific.
Quote by devourke
I was going to check and find it, but then I saw that he had 17 pages worth of threads.

What the actual fuck.
That's only the most recent 500, too. I've made much more than that.

And you know what?

#14
Quote by The Madcap
Similar, but much more specific.That's only the most recent 500, too. I've made much more than that.

And you know what?




I have posted way too many memes today
#15
Quote by devourke


I have posted way too many memes today


I don't think I'll ever get tired of this meme

To stay on topic, people should be allowed to do whatever drugs they want as long as they don't harm others. Russian roulette is extreme, though, and because of the obviously different intent, I don't think it should be legal. Drugs are for pleasure, Russian roulette is to put your life on the line for money (or just for fun). Not the same.
Dueling pistols used to be legal, especially to settle feuds. Can't happen nowadays, though. Overpopulation and too many people can get guns. It won't have the same results it did many years ago.
#16
Little do we know that we've unwittingly done all of madcaps homework for years that sneaky little bastage.

It ends here.
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
Sadly this is Ultimate-guitar, not Simple-guitar. We can't help you.


#17
I think drugs is a bad example of this because whoever's makin em is doing something that hurts people. Well some of em.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#18
Quote by The Madcap
Say there was a drug that was extremely addictive, and extremely harmful, very life-threatening, etc. far more than any other hard drug we know, and it offered a high. Should the substance be illegal?

As long as the public knows of the health risks, something along the lines of a surgeon generals's warning, no, it should not be illegal.
Quote by The Madcap
Perhaps two people playing russian roulette?

Yes.
Quote by The Madcap
Two men dueling with pistols?

This is where we enter, what I like to call, 'the grey area.'

281-330-8004, that's my cell phone number, hit me up on the low
#19
I guess so yeah, but I would still call all of them idiots to their faces.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#20
Quote by StewieSwan
No. I think extremely addictive drugs should be taxed more heavily, though.


No, because coercion will always play a big role. It's one thing if your friend pressures you into dropping acid with him. It's another if he pressures you to let him shoot you in the face.

This
#21
Well on one hand I suppose people should be able to choose what they do with their bodies, so long as no one else is harmed by it. On the other hand if our collective society sat around all day dropping acid and smoking weed, nothing would ever get done.

Finally, it's odd that alcohol is legal yet other drugs aren't, I'm sure alcohol has damaged far more peoples lives than any other drug.
return 0;

Quote by jsync
And I've eaten at some of Australia's best pizzerias.



SOUNDCLOUD
. com / fancy-elle
#22
Quote by Julz127
Well on one hand I suppose people should be able to choose what they do with their bodies, so long as no one else is harmed by it. On the other hand if our collective society sat around all day dropping acid and smoking weed, nothing would ever get done.

Finally, it's odd that alcohol is legal yet other drugs aren't, I'm sure alcohol has damaged far more peoples lives than any other drug.

'Nothing getting done' shouldn't be illegal. As in, it shouldn't be illegal for me to do nothing, i'm capable of doing that happily enough without drugs anyway, as are plenty of people...
#23
Probably people need their idiocy regulated so the tax bill is not too great.
not going viral


Hot E-Cousin of rjaylaf

Non Evil E-Twin of stealstrings

E-NEMESIS of deathdrummer
#24
Quote by devourke
What do you guys think of consensual euthanasia?

Some guy in NZ has got in deep trouble because his Mother insisted that he ended her suffering.


I'll bite on this one as off topic as it is.

Euthanasia actually does exist and is legal, if not moral. Basically, say you have a stroke, cannot talk, eat or drink. After about a week they will consult your family and if there is mutual consent (including that you will not recover) they will not give you food or water, except to keep your lips moist.

So, in essence, if you cannot feed yourself or get your own water, you eventually fail and die. In essence, euthanasia.

Moral? Leaves a bad taste in MY mouth but what else do you do.
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
Sadly this is Ultimate-guitar, not Simple-guitar. We can't help you.


#25
Madcap, i read the OP and sent you a friend request.
this thread is awesome. that is all.
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#26
Quote by The Madcap
So, first thing; With drugs; Should the level of danger of a certain drug ever make a difference in whether or not it should be illegal? Say their was a drug that was extremely addictive, and extremely harmful, very life-threatening, etc. far more than any other hard drug we know, and it offered a high. Should the substance be illegal?


Well, all "drugs" (commonly referenced ones, not licking frogs, sniffing glue or that improvised shit) should be legal, so nothing should differentiate whether or not they should be illegal.


However, the highly addictive/life-threatening ones should be HEAVILY regulated.
As in, if you want to try that drug, you should register in some kind of group that takes notice of how much you take of it, which doses etc, and which can prevent you from taking more if you threaten other people's life, or your own (as in, you become very dependant to it).

You shouldn't just sell bags of crack in gas stations next to the Mentos.

Of course, it depends on each drug.

And to carry it further; Do you think that consenting adults should be able to partake in any business they choose? Perhaps two people playing russian roulette? Two men dueling with pistols?


No.

Even if they "consent" adults shouldn't be justified in murdering each other for instance (referencing the dueling with pistols thing, but it also refers to any kind of dueling/fighting).

Also, pregnant women shouldn't do a lot of things even if they consent (again, dueling with pistols is one of them).

Regarding the russian roulette, in the end it's suicide and not murder so I don't see why people willing to risk their lives doing it shouldn't do so if they choose to (I'd try to regulate it if it spans underground business and shit obviously, but I suppose we are just talking about 2 consenting adults and nothing else).


There are not a lot of things that come to my mind where one could say "They shouldn't do this!" though.

So the main question for this thread: Is there a point where you say "This shouldn't be allowed, even though all people participating know the risks and choose to do it of their own consent and free will?" And if there is, why that point?


Yes, murder is that point....

Hell, you can just say the same thing about soldiers and war, in the end every soldier "consents" and they try to kill each other (barring colateral damage).
Yes stupid example perhaps, but you could somehow apply that reasoning to it


Maybe there are others too but I can't think of any at the moment.
#27
Quote by gonzaw
No.

Even if they "consent" adults shouldn't be justified in murdering each other for instance (referencing the dueling with pistols thing, but it also refers to any kind of dueling/fighting).
.

Why not? You can't just say 'it's murder' as if that's an argument in itself.
#28
Quote by Zoot Allures
Why not? You can't just say 'it's murder' as if that's an argument in itself.


Because I don't think people should murder each other....?


Either way, saying "it's murder" is in fact an argument in itself, if you assume that murder is immoral and shouldn't be done.


That's begging the question in a way, but if you want to question that presuposition then it's another argument altogether that doesn't have anything to do with "consenting" adults and stuff.
#29
Quote by Zoot Allures
Why not? You can't just say 'it's murder' as if that's an argument in itself.



Sometimes I mistake you for Irish, but then again I don't think this image would have any relevance to him either.


#30
Quote by mystical_1
I'll bite on this one as off topic as it is.

Euthanasia actually does exist and is legal, if not moral. Basically, say you have a stroke, cannot talk, eat or drink. After about a week they will consult your family and if there is mutual consent (including that you will not recover) they will not give you food or water, except to keep your lips moist.

So, in essence, if you cannot feed yourself or get your own water, you eventually fail and die. In essence, euthanasia.

Moral? Leaves a bad taste in MY mouth but what else do you do.

So I get to starve and thirst until I die? Why can't they just give me an OD dose of morphine and be done with it.
TO ALL MY KILLERS AND MY HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLERS...
...TO EMO KIDS THAT GOT TOO MANY FEELINGS
#31
Quote by The Madcap

So the main question for this thread: Is there a point where you say "This shouldn't be allowed, even though all people participating know the risks and choose to do it of their own consent and free will?" And if there is, why that point?


Yeah, I'd draw a line where some drugs and activities should be prohibited. I don't think I can form any ethical or moral reasons as of yet, just pragmatic ones. Life-threatening, highly addictive drugs should be banned because it seems counter-intuitive to let people get onto that stuff and establish programs to aid them, at least from a taxpayers perspective. Similar reasoning for gun fights and I can see it mucking up the prosecution in murder cases.
Last edited by Cianyx at Feb 19, 2012,
#32
Quote by Julz127
Well on one hand I suppose people should be able to choose what they do with their bodies, so long as no one else is harmed by it. On the other hand if our collective society sat around all day dropping acid and smoking weed, nothing would ever get done.

Making drugs legal wouldn't make our collective society sit around doing drugs 24/7. I've never met a person whose main reason for not doing drugs is that its illegal.
#33
Quote by gonzaw
Because I don't think people should murder each other....?


Either way, saying "it's murder" is in fact an argument in itself, if you assume that murder is immoral and shouldn't be done.


That's begging the question in a way, but if you want to question that presuposition then it's another argument altogether that doesn't have anything to do with "consenting" adults and stuff.

It has a lot to do with consenting adults. Since morality is generally something that has to be applied to a society in order to make it work, but if two people agreed to duel, then by their own moral standards it is acceptable, and no one else is hurt in the process.

Life goes on according to the socially accepted moral standards for the rest of us but they choose to opt out. They have the right to their opinions on morality and like i say, it doesn't hurt any of us.
#34
Quote by Zoot Allures
Quote by Julz127

Well on one hand I suppose people should be able to choose what they do with their bodies, so long as no one else is harmed by it. On the other hand if our collective society sat around all day dropping acid and smoking weed, nothing would ever get done.

'Nothing getting done' shouldn't be illegal. As in, it shouldn't be illegal for me to do nothing, i'm capable of doing that happily enough without drugs anyway, as are plenty of people...


Although I agree with you, he raises an interesting perspective. As many here have said, 'so long as no one else is harmed by it, where's the harm'? But we are a 'society', a 'social species', evolved to pull together for the advantage of all. Someone 'doing nothing' could be considered as someone 'neglecting society'.

Neglegence is often considered as a form of harm.
#35
Quote by SteveHouse
I think drugs is a bad example of this because whoever's makin em is doing something that hurts people. Well some of em.

Yeah I think there is a certain paradox here. Things should be legal so long as they do not harm anyone else, so people should be allowed to take drugs. However, producing drugs is (in most cases) producing something that causes harm to others.


In any case, if you're wanting to talk about being able to do anything you want of your own free will you're again into sticky territory with addictive drugs. Is being actually chemically addicted to a drug taking it of your own free will?


And of course as someone else mentioned: if you are causing a burden on others who would have to care for you, or if you need medical attention then it is not not harming others. However most drugs and activities can be done without needing others to care for you afterwards.
#36
Quote by Wolfinator-x
I disagree with this. People who create catastrophes DUI or who fry their brain to the point of no return will need healthcare; a service that oftentimes you get "for free" because of tax money.

That being said, I'm all for that sort of healthcare, but I draw the line somewhere. I don't want to pay taxes for some now comatose idiot who DUI. Same goes for say, somebody who self-mutilates.


I don't think that's inherent harm though. People who drive under the influence and cause accidents are harming people but it's the whole 'huge metal rolling thing coming at you at high speed' that's doing the damage, not the drugs.

Many people can take 'hard' drugs with basically no damage done.

Quote by SlackerBabbath
Although I agree with you, he raises an interesting perspective. As many here have said, 'so long as no one else is harmed by it, where's the harm'? But we are a 'society', a 'social species', evolved to pull together for the advantage of all. Someone 'doing nothing' could be considered as someone 'neglecting society'.

Neglegence is often considered as a form of harm.


I know we're probably on the same side of the argument but you could say that for a lot of things. Fast food makes people fat, weighs down (OLOLOLOLOL) the health service so damages society etc.

I think as long as it doesn't inherently damage society you can't justify banning it...
Quote by the_white_bunny
your just a simpleton that cant understand strategy apparently.

Quote by the_white_bunny
all hail king of the penis sucking(i said balls. you said dick for some reason?) Isabiggles
Last edited by isabiggles at Feb 19, 2012,
#37
Quote by isabiggles

I know we're probably on the same side of the argument but you could say that for a lot of things. Fast food makes people fat, weighs down (OLOLOLOLOL) the health service so damages society etc.

I think as long as it doesn't inherently damage society you can't justify banning it...


Oh I fully agree, I just thought it was an interesting perspective.
#38
What does 'inherent harm' mean? If harm arose from an activity, it still directly caused it and therefore inherent. The intent of the activity or the magnitude of the harm doesn't change this.
Last edited by Cianyx at Feb 19, 2012,
#39
Quote by Cianyx
What does 'inherent harm' mean? If harm arose from an activity, it still directly caused it and therefore inherent. The intent of the activity or the magnitude of the harm doesn't change this.


Not really.

If someone crashes a car driving under the influence the drugs would be indirectly responsible because they didn't cause the accident, the person losing control of the car did. The drugs may have contributed to the accident but just taking drugs won't cause you to cause car accidents or make you violent, lazy etc.
Quote by the_white_bunny
your just a simpleton that cant understand strategy apparently.

Quote by the_white_bunny
all hail king of the penis sucking(i said balls. you said dick for some reason?) Isabiggles
#40
I believe that if a responsible capable adult wishes to partake in an activity which, even though it could appear to bring he/she harm on at least some level, as long as it brings no direct suffering (or any other effects) to another person he/she should be legally allowed to do it.

Laws are in place to protect people from other people. There is no need to protect people from a man smoking cannabis in his own home.

IMO Jimmy Carter has got the right idea -
“Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use... ”

There is an argument that the secondary effects of drug use (i.e. the dealers/gansters/smugglers/terrorists/[insert bad group of people here] are benefiting from the drug trade and negatively effecting the lives of others as a result of it, through terrorism (?), drug wars and so on) however these would all be negated if the drug was legalised, taxed and grown by the government.


I'm a peaceful person, I'm not perfect, but I don't like hurting other people and I wouldn't dream of doing so. But I like having a joint in private (I'm not a 'Yeah man 420! smoker'), not directly harming anyone (except myself depending on your views).


Quote by isabiggles
Not really.

If someone crashes a car driving under the influence the drugs would be indirectly responsible because they didn't cause the accident, the person losing control of the car did. The drugs may have contributed to the accident but just taking drugs won't cause you to cause car accidents or make you violent, lazy etc.


In this case, the person driving the car is in the wrong. People still make choices. When someone kills another person in a drink-driving incident it's not the alcohols fault, it's the fault of the person who drunk the booze and decided it would be a good idea to get behind the wheel.
Yeah, now you're gonna die wearing that stupid little hat. How does it feel?

Help me to live.


I make custom guitar wiring harnesses and I'm pretty damn good at it!
Last edited by flyingmarlin at Feb 19, 2012,
Page 1 of 4