Public shaming of drug addicts - Do you think its a deterant to drug use?

Public shaming of drug addicts - Do you think its a deterant to drug use?

  • yes

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • no, please state why in thread

    Votes: 13 68.4%

  • Total voters
    19

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I completely disagree with this. Making drug use socially acceptable and drugs easier to find and use are not positive moves for addicts and potential addicts. It's been demonstrated in every state in which pot has been legalized that there are serious side effects for doing that. One of them is that kids can get access to drugs much more easily. And drug usage among young kids is extremely damaging. Just using pot as an example, from the time a person starts using the maturation process stops. On top of that their mental abilities are reduced for pot decreases their ability to concentrate, even when they are not high. So that means their reasoning power is reduced. Why anyone would be for increasing the odds of that happening to anyone is to me incomprehensible. There is no way that I could support such endeavors and still claim I love my fellow man for what has loving my fellow man have do with increasing the odds of their self destruction. That is the opposite of being a friend.

Befriending an addict has nothing to do with making drug usage acceptable. It has everything to do with loving your fellow man enough to lend a helping hand to those who are at that time incapable of helping themselves. Increasing the odds of creating more addicts is not loving our fellow man. It is exactly the opposite of doing so.
I think the result of decriminalization will ultimately end up the same as alcohol. And the medical problems with pot will also be well known if it is legal and I think that will result in lower usage than other drugs.

But I have no way to prove that will be the result. Although I think I have some good evidence that I'm right, it's not as solid as some libertarians might think (I'm not a libertarian). So if people feel otherwise, I understand.
 

Eric h

Active member
Befriending an addict has nothing to do with making drug usage acceptable. It has everything to do with loving your fellow man enough to lend a helping hand to those who are at that time incapable of helping themselves. Increasing the odds of creating more addicts is not loving our fellow man. It is exactly the opposite of doing so.

Agreed; and that could be a lifetime journey; it can be incredibly challenging, but also rewarding.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
I think the result of decriminalization will ultimately end up the same as alcohol. And the medical problems with pot will also be well known if it is legal and I think that will result in lower usage than other drugs.

But I have no way to prove that will be the result. Although I think I have some good evidence that I'm right, it's not as solid as some libertarians might think (I'm not a libertarian). So if people feel otherwise, I understand.
So you think that legalizing the sale of alcohol and the fact that it is acceptable in society to drink has actually reduced the damage done by alcohol consumption and alcoholism? Huh? There is so much cognitive dissonance going on in that statement it's off the charts.

The ills associated of alcohol and alcoholism are some of the most destructive forces that exist in our society. The damage done in domestic abuse of spouses and children while under the influence of alcohol is so common and so destructive it's impossible to actually quantify. How do you quantify the value and usefulness of a child's life who has had their life destroyed by abuse? How do you say what they could or couldn't have been without the abuse and terror they lived through as children? There is no way to measure it, but I can tell you from experience that if I had not gone through what I went through as a kid the results of my life would have been as different as day is from night. And all that was caused by alcoholism in a society that accepts drinking and alcohol. If my old man had not been a dry drunk, and if his old man hadn't drowned because he and his fishing partner were so drunk they couldn't see a thunderstorm coming on Lake Superior in the middle of the day my start in life would have been so much more advantageous for me who knows what I could have accomplished in this life. I had the genetics for it as my great grandfather was a multimillionaire when the depression hit, and he had only emigrated here 15 years before. He was a tremendous businessman and an honest one too for he had a million dollars worth of logs on his landings and they became worthless over night. But he went to work and paid off every one of his debts.

So how do you measure this kind of loss? How did legalization and societal acceptance of alcohol minimize that loss? How do you figure out what a kid born with an IQ a couple of standard deviations above average could have accomplished if he hadn't been born under the curse of addiction and lived through hell growing up? I'm not complaining. I'm making an argument against your position from personal experience. How do you measure the difference in the life of someone who had no clue as to who he was until the age of forty compared to someone of equal ability who is encouraged to find out who he is and what he can do when a kid and then supported by his parents rather than squashed every time he showed independent thought? How do you measure that because my experience is actually pretty common for those raised in alcoholic/drug addict families? How do you measure that in just one individual let alone the millions of those who have had their lives destroyed by alcoholism?

Your position is similar to the political and economic positions the socialists take. They don't understand economics but they have the politics of hope. They hope what they are going to do will work. and upon that hope they do some amazingly stupid things. And they think their hope justifies their forcing upon others their ideas.

I'm not saying you want to force your ideas on others. I've read your posts for many years and have often agreed with you and your reasoning. I just don't think your position on this subject is a well-thought out position. It's one that arises from an emotion, and thus isn't really founded in reality. But, you also haven't experienced the hell that is addiction so you can't really realize what all it does to a person. It's impossible for anyone who hasn't lived a life of addiction to actually know what kind of hell it is.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Temp Banned
aCultureWarrior said:
libertarians
One other thing. I'm not a libertarian, I have never voted libertarian. I do not agree with libertarians.

I am a pragmatist.

I run across that a lot in my journeys through various forums. I've asked numerous people why they went out of their way to say that they're not libertarian, but none have given me an answer. How about you: What is it about libertarian ideology that made you mention that you're not one?

Now back to the therapy that you so desperately need: Why is it that you love to see others in misery, which being addicted to drugs is.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you think that legalizing the sale of alcohol and the fact that it is acceptable in society to drink has actually reduced the damage done by alcohol consumption and alcoholism?
Of course not. What I do know, from demonstration, is that making alcohol illegal makes things worse.

So why are things so bad with alcohol? It's the bad justice system that does not prosecute crime properly when crimes are easier to commit when drunk. And a bad law system that does not allow people to be free to make a better life that would have alcohol get in the way.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
aCultureWarrior said:
libertarians


I run across that a lot in my journeys through various forums. I've asked numerous people why they went out of their way to say that they're not libertarian, but none have given me an answer. How about you: What is it about libertarian ideology that made you mention that you're not one?

Now back to the therapy that you so desperately need: Why is it that you love to see others in misery, which being addicted to drugs is.
The reason I say I'm not a libertarian is because I offer a solution that libertarians also offer. And since they are more well known than I am, one might think I'm offering that solution because I'm a libertarian. But I'm not.

I'm not a libertarian because the logical conclusion to libertarianism is Anarcho Capitalism. But I think the government has a roll in society so I can't be that.

But let's say one wants to say that I'm a MinArchist. A MinArchist is a libertarian that believes in a minimal roll of government. That would be technically accurate, but fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally a MinArchist believes a government is necessary because of the same philosophical reasons as Objectivism. I believe in a small government because God has revealed what the government's roll is. This would lead to some fundamentally different conclusions than a MinArchist.

So that is the short answer on why I cannot be called a libertarian even though we agree on a lot of the same solutions.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
What is it about libertarian ideology that made you mention that you're not one?
Libertarians are anti-government. They hate all government except the military and sometimes the police. I'm against stupid government.
Now back to the therapy that you so desperately need: Why is it that you love to see others in misery, which being addicted to drugs is.
After you answer my question. Why did you murder my grandmother?

In fact why did you force Ethan Couch to guzzle your legal alcohol and murder 4 people? Do you know how much pain and misery you spread? Obviously, you just don't care.

aCultureWarrior is a unrepentant, Satan-worshipping murderer. All we holier-than-thou Christians can do is hope that aCultureWarrior repents before God snuffs him out of existence.
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Temp Banned
The reason I say I'm not a libertarian is because I offer a solution that libertarians also offer. And since they are more well known than I am, one might think I'm offering that solution because I'm a libertarian. But I'm not.

I'm not a libertarian because the logical conclusion to libertarianism is Anarcho Capitalism. But I think the government has a roll in society so I can't be that.

But let's say one wants to say that I'm a MinArchist. A MinArchist is a libertarian that believes in a minimal roll of government. T
hat would be technically accurate, but fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally a MinArchist believes a government is necessary because of the same philosophical reasons as Objectivism. I believe in a small government because God has revealed what the government's roll is. This would lead to some fundamentally different conclusions than a MinArchist.

So that is the short answer on why I cannot be called a libertarian even though we agree on a lot of the same solutions.

Thanks for admitting in your own roundabout way that you're a libertarian. As mentioned before, the Libertarian Party Platform preamble explains the basic tenet of libertarianism. Either you agree with that or you don't.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
https://www.lp.org/platform/
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Thanks for admitting in your own roundabout way that you're a libertarian. As mentioned before, the Libertarian Party Platform preamble explains the basic tenet of libertarianism. Either you agree with that or you don't.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
https://www.lp.org/platform/
You're ignoring the details:

I'll tell you just some of the details I disagree with in part or full. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7.

Basically everything.

So no, I'm not a libertarian. But, if you'd like to go through the details and try to argue how I actually agree with it all, go ahead.

But you should really read through the details yourself to understand why the Libertarian party is fringe.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
https://www.lp.org/platform/
So you don't think we should have freedom? Even leftists think freedom is great, as long as every free individual desires to do exactly as they say.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Temp Banned
So you don't think we should have freedom? Even leftists think freedom is great, as long as every free individual desires to do exactly as they say.
At least you're admitting that you're a libertarian. I can't believe the amount of people that don't want to be identified with the movement.
BTW, I see that the rainbow flag waving liberal/libertarian who I thought would have to be dragged out of the Oval Office kicking and screaming is pardoning a bunch of drug dealers. That should make Trump's libertarian base happy.

https://nypost.com/article/trump-presidential-pardons-full-list/
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
At least you're admitting that you're a libertarian. I can't believe the amount of people that don't want to be identified with the movement.
BTW, I see that the rainbow flag waving liberal/libertarian who I thought would have to be dragged out of the Oval Office kicking and screaming is pardoning a bunch of drug dealers. That should make Trump's libertarian base happy.

https://nypost.com/article/trump-presidential-pardons-full-list/
aCultureWarrior really likes his hate of Trump. It's so nice he's admitted he's a Democrat.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Temp Banned
So no, I'm not a libertarian....

Your statement from this post a page ago says that you are:
I would like people to die based on what they did to themselves -

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

Since you tried so hard (once again) to distance yourself from libertarianism (and once again failed), I think that your efforts shouldn't go unnoticed.

 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Your statement from this post a page ago says that you are:


"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

Since you tried so hard (once again) to distance yourself from libertarianism (and once again failed), I think that your efforts shouldn't go unnoticed.

So, what you're sayin is that you hate God and everything he represents. You want the innocent punished and the guilty to go unpunished. And since you did not deny being a Democrat, you obviously want innocent babies murdered.

You, dear sir, are despicable.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
At least you're admitting that you're a libertarian. I can't believe the amount of people that don't want to be identified with the movement.
BTW, I see that the rainbow flag waving liberal/libertarian who I thought would have to be dragged out of the Oval Office kicking and screaming is pardoning a bunch of drug dealers. That should make Trump's libertarian base happy.

https://nypost.com/article/trump-presidential-pardons-full-list/
Hilltrot beat me to it: So, what you're sayin is that you hate God and everything he represents. You want the innocent punished and the guilty to go unpunished. And since you did not deny being a Democrat, you obviously want innocent babies murdered.

You, dear sir, are despicable.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
So, what you're sayin is that you hate God and everything he represents. You want the innocent punished and the guilty to go unpunished. And since you did not deny being a Democrat, you obviously want innocent babies murdered.

You, dear sir, are despicable.
Maybe despicable, probably on the spectrum
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Of course not. What I do know, from demonstration, is that making alcohol illegal makes things worse.

So why are things so bad with alcohol? It's the bad justice system that does not prosecute crime properly when crimes are easier to commit when drunk. And a bad law system that does not allow people to be free to make a better life that would have alcohol get in the way.
I see you confounding liberty with license. They are completely separate concepts. Liberty requires discipline, and especially self-discipline. License is the exact opposite. License is the absence of both discipline and self-discipline. it is, in effect, addiction.

Liberty:
1. The state of a free person; exemption from subjection to
the will of another claiming ownership of the person or
services; freedom; -- opposed to slavery, serfdom,
bondage, or subjection.

As addiction is both bondage and subjection it is the opposite of liberty.

License:
excessive freedom; lack of due restraint; "when liberty
becomes license dictatorship is near"- Will Durant; "the
intolerable license with which the newspapers break...the
rules of decorum"- Edmund Burke [syn: license, licence]\

BTW, the definitions come from Webster's Dictionary.

The lack of due restraint means bondage and that means the lack of liberty is directly ahead. Drugs become dictatorial in the lives of addicts. License kills good morals and morality.

We here in the US have mistaken license for liberty for far too long. It's why we are now under totalitarian government. This is the reason I am not a libertarian as it has abandoned the love of liberty for the love of license. As Alexis de Tocqueville said: Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith. Libertarianism lost sight of this truth years ago.
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Temp Banned
Liberty requires discipline, and especially self-discipline. License is the exact opposite. License is the absence of both discipline and self-discipline. it is, in effect, addiction.
You're of course using the word liberty as libertarians use it, not the true meaning as in liberty/freedom from sin. BTW, I've asked this of many libertarians before but never received an answer (I'll pause so you can tell me you're not one) : Why would libertarians expect discipline and self discipline, both which are moral actions, to be involved in inherently immoral acts like recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution?
 
Top