Week Question #1 - Do you think you should be able to decide what you want to do with your own body?

[Chronus]

No my question was actually this,
"So my question was should the laws be based on profits or actual science?"

In analysing your response to Warren, let us be clear: you posed 3 questions. One of them directly related to an example (alcohol).

So, the question following that example really was:

Should we ban it because a minority of the drinkers can´t control it?

I gave my opinion to that question.

Clear, I hope.

Next question: "So my question was should the laws be based on profits or actual science?"

Already answered too. Although the question is actually a moot point. On one hand, profits, which care nothing about people and what happens to them. Should we then base our decision based on something that does not have as its ultimate goal the benefit of people? OBVIOUSLY NOT. Hence, the clear answer is SCIENCE.But then SCIENCE is now threatened in its independence, as I also referred above.

Please re-read what I posted about PROFIT acting through other means, means that safeguard it from exposing itself.

Next question "And where do you draw the line?"

This question ties directly not into profit vs science, but to that other question:

Should we ban it because a minority of the drinkers can´t control it?

To which I also gave my answer.

Now you try to redefine the intention of the question ("where do you draw the line?" by retracing your steps backwards and asking scientifically speaking and mentioning deaths.

But ok, let us address that again, by repeating the question YOU did not answer:

But ultimately, if a substance is known to cause heavy addiction and problems to 5% of the population (rather generous percentage, obviously; in truth, the numbers are much higher) should we feel fine just because it doesn't affect us and only that minority?

My own answer to this was and is NO.

What is your answer?

My line is drawn that way, regardless of numbers (0.5% or 5% or 50%), as long as human beings are affected by something we should reconsider its use and probably ban it.

What is YOUR ANSWER?

Yes and no it seems. We should be able to fully trust science but with the way it´s funded there is inevitable that you won´t always be able to do that because someone has the ability to strangle the research etc.

Precisely. But one thing is "we should be able", quite another is the actual reality in which, sadly, many scientists are sponsored by companies or governments and have their independence (and integrity) compromised.

Not all scientists are like this. A British professor of mine told me he had a special contract with a BIG OIL company when developing a certain compound for certain catastrophic situations: if he felt, at any time, that compound would have secondary effects on wild life, he would leave the project. Not all scientists sell their souls, thankfully, but the truth is part of Science is heavily compromised by politics and capital.

And the humanitarian course is what?

Isn't it clear? That which does not cause harm to human beings. That S-I-M-P-L-E.

this is the reason i´m asking, because saying "take the most humanitarian course" is as complex as everything else.

No it is not. As long as someone hurts due to the use of this or that substance, we should never be satisfied.

 

[Chronus]

And to move away from drugs to something more accepted in society.

You did explore the drugs/substance use. Why force another direction at this time?

Besides, isn't this matter fully integrated into what you originally ask? Obviously so.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Isn't it clear? That which does not cause harm to human beings. That S-I-M-P-L-E.

If you drink enough water you can die.

By your logic we should ban it. It´s not simple even though you like to think it is.
All substances can be harmful to human beings.

You can die from Air as well.

No it is not. As long as someone hurts due to the use of this or that substance, we should never be satisfied.

Read above, it´s not that simple.

And btw, you used the same quote twice.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

You did explore the drugs/substance use. Why force another direction at this time?

Besides, isn't this matter fully integrated into what you originally ask? Obviously so.

Because it´s not all about drugs.
Drugs is just one part of the spectrum of the whole picture.

Again, water (what we need to survive) can also kill you. Should we ban it? It can be harmful.
People have died from water by mis-using it.
Your logics is not crystal clear in any way even though you like to think that.

Countless of things are actually harmful to people while they are not to the bigger majority.
Your logic is that if it goes above 5% then we should make it illegal.
What´s harmful to someone is not always harmful to someone else.

 

[Chronus]

I'll give a mature person prespective, but one which will probably be dismissed by most younger people.

I did agree and agree with your post, Warren.

Just thought I'd comment this curious comment in your post.

I'm 43. I have had...er...energetic discussions with people much younger than I (say people in their early twenties) and they say exactly the same thing as you (or I) say.

Reflecting on it, maturity (age derived or otherwise) may not be as crucial to seeing this issue as you might think.

It all depends on how people view this issue: a matter of numbers or a matter of...people.

In my opinion, this is more about people than about numbers or statistics. And being about people, it is also about our race, our beliefs, how we view the world.

Some people, in spite of their (many) flaws, have a strong humanitarian streak. Others do not. Hence their choices.

 

[Chronus]

Because it´s not all about drugs.
Drugs is just one part of the spectrum of the whole picture.

Yes, it is part of the whole picture. Precisely. Hence our discussing it - with your strong input, should be added.

Again, water (what we need to survive) can also kill you. Should we ban it? It can be harmful.
People have died from water by mis-using it.
Your logics is not crystal clear in any way even though you like to think that.

The logic is crystal clear, though you may opine otherwise. I don't care.

Water is necessary for life. Without water you will not survive. Banning water because it can harm humans (too much drinking, yes, and people also drown in water) is a moot point. No one is talking about banning air or water because these are substances without which you WILL NOT SURVIVE. Again: moot point.

All other substances that are not vital to our survival are subject to the criteria discussed: if they harm people, their use should be reconsidered or simply discontinued.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Yes, it is part of the whole picture. Precisely. Hence our discussing it - with your strong input, should be added.

Keyword: PART of the whole picture. Which is what i said.
It´s one part of the spectrum.

Again, drugs are not the be all end all of the discussion.
Not everything is drugs because you can put it in your body.

The reason i talked about drugs is because it´s very well on the topic at hand.
But again, only a part of it.

The logic is crystal clear, though you may opine otherwise. I don't care.

Lactose is found in milk etc.
The majority of the world population, mostly asian/african are lactose-intolerant.

Should we ban regular milk for everyone who is not?

Millions, yes millions of people are allergic to Eggs. Should we ban it?
It´s very harmful to these people.

 

[Tom]

Lactose is found in milk etc.
The majority of the world population, mostly asian/african are lactose-intolerant.

Should we ban regular milk for everyone who is not?

Millions, yes millions of people are allergic to Eggs. Should we ban it?
It´s very harmful to these people.

Sugar is harmful to me, extremely harmful. We should ban it for no reason!

 

[Chronus]

Keyword: PART of the whole picture. Which is what i said.
It´s one part of the spectrum.

Again, drugs are not the be all end all of the discussion.
Not everything is drugs because you can put it in your body.

The reason i talked about drugs is because it´s very well on the topic at hand.
But again, only a part of it.

We're now running around in circles. YES, it is part of the whole picture. It is integrated into the whole picture. Yes. I said so myself several times. Hence our discussing it. Fine.

Lactose is found in milk etc.
The majority of the world population, mostly asian/african are lactose-intolerant.

Should we ban regular milk for everyone who is not?

Millions, yes millions of people are allergic to Eggs. Should we ban it?
It´s very harmful to these people.

Er...really? Well, we could now begin a debate about enzymes and how a simple intake of enzymes (Enzymatic lactase) would prevent this big "harm" but it's probably best we avoid it.

Have you read what I posted?

Again:

"All other substances that are not vital to our survival are subject to the criteria discussed: if they harm people, their use should be reconsidered or simply discontinued."

Their use should be reconsidered or simply discontinued.
One or the other.

In the case of milk, moot point again, as I explained right out in answering this latest question.

Sugar is harmful to me, extremely harmful. We should ban it for no reason!

Is anyone here suggesting we ban things for "no reason", Tom? Or is that also "for no good reason"?

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Sugar is harmful to me, extremely harmful. We should ban it for no reason!

Yes we should ban everything!

imo we should legalize everything but regulate everything. And regulate it hard.
do we want criminals to transport drugs and kill people for drugs or should we take away their biggest asset and let the government take care of the issue?

People will still do drugs either way.. we can only decide who should get the money.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Lol every time there´s a point made Chronus calls it a moot point.
I should do that in discussions, "nope it´s a moot point"
It´s not a moot point and i did read your nice red text several times, you forgot to read every single question mark that i wrote.
But i guess that too was a moot point as well.................

And by the way, you have a habit of saying something, then i say yes that´s what i said in the first place then you say "well hello i said it too"
incredible.

Don´t bother replying, i will do the same as you do, say it´s a moot point.
Makes things so much easier, as you know

 

[Chronus]

I see. Your original intent was not to have an interesting and serious discussion. Hence the "Yes we should ban everything!".

Ok. Moot point, as per Merriam-Webster: "a point or question to be debated; a doubtful question"

If it is a moot point, it is. I am always open to good reasoning, if you're right about something I say so, if not I say so too.

You posted "moot points". I presented the reasons why I believe so. You mock them and the debate.

Fine. Have it your way. No need for unnecessary confrontation...nor for getting personal.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I see. Your original intent was not to have an interesting and serious discussion. Hence the "Yes we should ban everything!".

Ok. Moot point, as per Merriam-Webster: "a point or question to be debated; a doubtful question"

If it is a moot point, it is. I am always open to good reasoning, if you're right about something I say so, if not I say so too.

You posted "moot points". I presented the reasons why I believe so. You mock them and the debate.

Fine. Have it your way. No need for unnecessary confrontation...nor for getting personal.

Moot point sorry i can´t discuss it. It´s a moot point.

If it were a normal point i would simply reverse it into a moot point so we come at a dead end there as well, as you know very well.

 

[Rhys Gardiner]

I'm not sure that the talk of allergies is very constructive. Foods that cause allergies and "recreational substances" are very different things... with allergies, you have a physiological reaction that the person knows will be harmful to them no matter how much of the substance/food they ingest. But the key thing to remember is that an allergy doesn't affect every human being.

On the other hand, in the case of drugs/alcohol etc, for most people (I stress the word "most") the substance will not immediately harm them (or, sometimes, so they think - your mileage may vary on that one). A person will consume it for the buzz and perceive no ill effects. The difference is, the substance may later become addictive, and then the person, and possibly those around them, will be harmed.

Long story short: You can't become addicted to allergens (at least I hope not - would you be in the right state of mind if you became addicted to something that would most definitely hurt you?), but you can become addicted to recreational substances (which you would consume knowing that it only has the potential to harm you).

 

[Rhys Gardiner]

Just something I'd like to pose for the sake of discussion: If I'm allergic to peanut butter for example*, and had the opportunity to ban it, would I do so and deny the opportunity to enjoy it for people who aren't allergic to it?

*I'm not, by the way. I'm not allergic to anything that I know of. Just a hypothetical question.

 

[Chronus]

Moot point sorry i can´t discuss it. It´s a moot point.

If it were a normal point i would simply reverse it into a moot point so we come at a dead end there as well, as you know very well.

Banning water is a moot point. But if you'd rather prefer, your arguments for banning water are irrelevant. Regardless of what happens when people abuse its consumption, water is vital for Life. No one would ever ban water, hence why right from the start there is no discussion. But if you'd rather prefer, you used a bad example.

But then you mentioned milk and lactose intolerance. Rhys already explained quite well why talks of allergies is probably not "very constructive", why allergies and "recreational substances" are two different things. You are comparing things that are not comparable, again. Hence the moot point. But there's more: how can anyone ban milk if by use of enzymatic lactase you get rid of the intolerance in the first place? Again, bad example. Again, moot point.

I am all for discussing things. Go back to the UFO thread and the debate with several people that regard UFOs in a certain, shall we say, sceptic way. They have their view, I have mine. Mine is certainly not the right one, but I make it a point to be open and be constructive. You yourself said EXACTLY that about my discussion with some sceptics.

Now, if you are using bad examples, what are you to expect? My accepting them without critical thinking? Wrong move, m8. If I am not logical and people can prove it to me, then I'm the one who wins, for I'll learn and I should be thankful for learning something new. If others are not logical or use bad examples, faulty examples or rely on "moot points", I try to make them see and finally tell them so - just as others do to me and everybody else. No problem in that.

Problem is, m8, you get personal. You got personal with the sceptics in the Conspiracy and UFO threads, and out of the blue you're getting personal with me.

Fine. We all learn from mistakes.

You certainly showed mine.

Have a nice one.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Banning water is a moot point. But if you'd rather prefer, your arguments for banning water are irrelevant. Regardless of what happens when people abuse its consumption, water is vital for Life. No one would ever ban water, hence why right from the start there is no discussion. But if you'd rather prefer, you used a bad example.

But then you mentioned milk and lactose intolerance. Rhys already explained quite well why talks of allergies is probably not "very constructive". You are comparing things that are not comparable, again. Hence the moot point. But there's more: how can anyone ban milk if by use of enzymatic lactase you get rid of the intolerance in the first place? Again, bad example. Again, moot point.

I am all for discussing things. Go back to the UFO thread and the debate with several people that regard UFOs in a certain, shall we say, sceptic way. They have their view, I have mine. Mine is certainly not the right one, but I make it a point to be open and be constructive. You yourself said EXACTLY that about my discussion with some sceptics.

Now, if you are using bad examples, what are you to expect? My accepting them without critical thinking? Wrong move, m8. If I am not logical and people can prove it to me, then I'm the one who wins, for I'll learn and I should be thankful for learning something new. If others are not logical or use bad examples, faulty examples or rely on "moot points", I try to make them see and finally tell them so - just as others do to me and everybody else. No problem in that.

Problem is, m8, you get personal. You got personal with the sceptics in the Conspiracy and UFO threads, and out of the blue you're getting personal with me.

Fine. We all learn from mistakes.

You certainly showed mine.

Have a nice one.

Hmm...yea i can see what you mean but....moot point.
Yea have a nice day, unless that is a moot point as well.

I love being you, makes things so much easier.
I honestly stopped reading when you started quoting the same words twice, repeated things that i had already said and said moot point to every point made.

 

[Warren Dawes]

Sorry for putting forward my original comments, I thought I was addressing the original question / topic, but it now looks like it was a bait to start a whole new debate that is getting away from reasonable logic.
For the record, I was in no way suggesting banning some substances through laws, but we already have laws that are designed to help control / deter people from making poor decisions in the first place (eg. age limit restrictions, drink driving, cigarette advertising, only some examples). These laws may need improvement, but removing them totally won't help either.
BTW, my reference to laws was secondary to my main point which was explained first.

I'm out of this topic now.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Just tried that. Not working.

Can you tell me if:
- you can edit/correct any post, replied to or otherwise?
- you can edit new or old posts?

Panic, panic, panic

Some people (not you btw) were editing valuable proof posts during the hello haters era last week hence I disabled the edit option

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Nevermind, i´m talking to a man who sees statements in questions and one that can´t see them at all.