|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why daddy's nose bleeds: responsibility and disease and addiction
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some may die from impurities in what they take; others because they take too much of something which would pass any testing - how do you stop that? It's something I've raised before and which you have yet to answer.
My answer is that no measure is perfect, but if we have a measure that will save x lives then the fact that we won't save x + y lives is no reason not to do it. Nor is the reason that we've already done the minimum necessary. I would like us to do more than the minimum.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
While I don't see what is being done as the minimum but rather carrying out what is the obligation the state carries.
To go back to the motor-cycle helmet: to start with, that's not any sort of analogy. The parents are not committing an offence by supplying a helmet. And it is not the parents' action which has made riding under-age illegal. I can see no reason why the parents should not supply the helmet.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I agree the motorcycle analogy is a bit different, and I suspect will produce another area where communication might get challenging.
On the minimum vs obligation distinction - isn't that just semantics? If I say "Why don't we do something more" is there really any difference between saying "This is all that we are obliged to do" and "This is the minimum that we need to do"?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Not sure that it's just semantics, as my point is neither minimum or obligation (if you're using that in the sense of required) but rather should.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And my point is as much about want to as should. I want to protect young people from harm.
It seems to me that to argue against doing it you have to either say;
a) "I only want to do what I'm obliged to, I don't care enough to do more"
b) "I think that what you are proposing will not work/ will be harmful for pragmatic reasons"
or
c) "I would be happy to save these lives, but I can't because I feel constraints based on other principles".
I think you are saying c) to me. And since that is axiomatic for you there's little more that can be said.
My only counter would be to say that using the law as an axiomatic seems dangerous to me. There must be other moral imperatives in life that can trump it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Mostly your pojnt c, but not that I feel that there are constraints but that there are in fact constraints, ie the legislation making the sale and use of these drugs illegal. If they were as legal as eg alcohol, my objections would go. There is no principle in either of your other points.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
On the hell thread, RuthW used the term 'legalism' which struck me as accurate about Gee D. I also thought of scrupulosity. But RuthW also made the point that legalism may in fact be immoral. Thus if you can save lives by doing X, but X condones something illegal? Of course, it depends on what X is and what the something illegal is.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If obeying the law is considered axiomatic and unassailable then by definition that is legalism.
I would guess that for most of us obeying the law is a motivated by other principles - wanting a framework that keeps an orderly society, for instance, or supporting a concept of justice that transcends the law.
GeeD has confirmed that obedience to the law is axiomatic, but he hasn't directly confirmed it is unassailable for him (although I am inferring it is).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Mostly your pojnt c, but not that I feel that there are constraints but that there are in fact constraints, ie the legislation making the sale and use of these drugs illegal. If they were as legal as eg alcohol, my objections would go. There is no principle in either of your other points.
But this is stupid. Legal =/= good. Legal =/= right. Legal =/= just. And, most importantly, legal is not sufficient to control behaviour. Nothing is completely, but education has a higher success rate than legal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
No law is unassailable and the ongoing development of what should and should not be law remains a vital part of the legal system.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No law is unassailable and the ongoing development of what should and should not be law remains a vital part of the legal system.
This manages to say something completely true and yet utterly useless to the conversation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the hell thread, RuthW used the term 'legalism' which struck me as accurate about Gee D. I also thought of scrupulosity. But RuthW also made the point that legalism may in fact be immoral. Thus if you can save lives by doing X, but X condones something illegal? Of course, it depends on what X is and what the something illegal is.
Saving the lives of people doing something illegal does not condone doing illegal things. It merely recognizes that people doing illegal things are still human beings who deserve our care.
Let's say someone owns land on which there is an unstable cliff. That person may chose to place a sign warning that the cliff is unstable. That doesn't mean that person has condoned trespass on the property.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No law is unassailable and the ongoing development of what should and should not be law remains a vital part of the legal system.
Obviously. But not an answer to the question of whether the principle of unswerving obedience to the law is ever assailable for you.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I should resist the temptation, but I won't.
Somehow it has always occurred to me that living is a basic human right.
OTOH, if society deems drug use a capital crime, we should - according to law - let them all suffer and die whilst watching over their final breaths with that glow that comes from moral superiority.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
I could work with that as a thin edge of a virtuous wedge. Healthcare is a human right isn't it?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
I doubt you would.
First, Germans are no more or less evil or heartless than any other group of people. So just as most people there and then didn't, most others substituted in wouldn't either. Human nature.
Second, regarding you specifically: If you have such a tight focus on law Über Alles whilst living in a society free from such extraordinary pressures, then it bodes poorly for moral strength in extremis.
Am I wrong? Possibly. However, your statements thus far do not so indicate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I should resist the temptation, but I won't.
Somehow it has always occurred to me that living is a basic human right.
OTOH, if society deems drug use a capital crime, we should - according to law - let them all suffer and die whilst watching over their final breaths with that glow that comes from moral superiority.
That city councilman in Ohio who wants to refuse emergency services in response to 911 calls for anyone who has previously received help twice for an illicit drug OD is onto something. Think of all the public money we could save, not to mention the reduction of the surplus population.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So just as most people there and then didn't, most others substituted in wouldn't either. Human nature.
On the other hand maybe someone prepared to go against the flow is better equipped to do that twice. GeeD is rather against the flow on this thread. Maybe he'd pull that off in the right circumstances. Who's to know?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So just as most people there and then didn't, most others substituted in wouldn't either. Human nature.
On the other hand maybe someone prepared to go against the flow is better equipped to do that twice. GeeD is rather against the flow on this thread. Maybe he'd pull that off in the right circumstances. Who's to know?
It is impossible to know for certain. And it is a useless game anyway. As much as we like to think there is some inner-core that is the essential Us, we are greatly shaped by our circumstance. You, born into early 20th C Germany, would not be our mdijion. You would be a completely different person.
So, all we can really compare is our attributes in our reality transplanted into Nazi Germany. And GeeD's posts on this thread aren't encouraging.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Back to GeeD's actual position on this thread, aren't we missing a simple way out of this?
The state simply has to legislate that testing drugs and not turning in the drug users presenting their drugs for testing is not against the law in certain circumstances. Then once that is done there's no objection on grounds of illegality.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Back to GeeD's actual position on this thread, aren't we missing a simple way out of this?
The state simply has to legislate that testing drugs and not turning in the drug users presenting their drugs for testing is not against the law in certain circumstances. Then once that is done there's no objection on grounds of illegality.
Doesn't change his stance that it is better to let someone die than break the law to help them. It is for his apparent callous disregard for people and offensive analogy that I called him to Hell. Thus far, he's not made much of an effort to change this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Back to GeeD's actual position on this thread, aren't we missing a simple way out of this?
The state simply has to legislate that testing drugs and not turning in the drug users presenting their drugs for testing is not against the law in certain circumstances. Then once that is done there's no objection on grounds of illegality.
Precisely. But if you're going to do that, what are the circumstances - they should not be limited to attendance at festivals.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
I could work with that as a thin edge of a virtuous wedge. Healthcare is a human right isn't it?
Access to healthcare, free legal advice for those arrested and so forth are basic human rights. Are you contemplating some sort of law that makes them illegal?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Access to healthcare, free legal advice for those arrested and so forth are basic human rights. Are you contemplating some sort of law that makes them illegal?
Good grief, no. My point was that you were prepared to break the law where it interferes with basic human rights, therefore one could make an argument regarding the healthcare benefits of needle exchange vs the law.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Precisely. But if you're going to do that, what are the circumstances - they should not be limited to attendance at festivals.
The circumstances would have to be worked out, and yes I would suggest doing it a bit more widely than festivals. So I think you'd be broadly in favour of changing the law to support drug testing if that was shown to be a useful intervention. Which is good common ground then.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
As to your first - I don't see that taking an illegal drug is a basic human right, any more than there is no basic human right to drive a car while blind drunk.
As to the second, I'd take the position that if drug-taking at a festival is to be permitted, there's no argument against allowing it generally, subject perhaps to the same rules as apply to alcohol consumption by minors.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your first - I don't see that taking an illegal drug is a basic human right
Do you really think that is my argument?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the second, I'd take the position that if drug-taking at a festival is to be permitted...
While I'd actually be in favour of legalization of many drugs, that wasn't what I was arguing. I was arguing for specific legislation saying that in the specific instance of someone providing a drug-testing service would not be legally bound to report a drug user and would not be breaking the law. Possession and supply could still be treated as crimes.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
As to your first comment, I had no idea what your argument was, but you have now set it out.
The second still has problems in the context of this thread. How can the state on the one hand say that it is illegal to take this drug, but on the other provide testing services. There is a clear illogicality. Even if the testing were provided and paid for by someone other than the government, could not the police simply wait at the out door, check and the arrest those coming through with drugs?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your first comment, I had no idea what your argument was, but you have now set it out.
The second still has problems in the context of this thread. How can the state on the one hand say that it is illegal to take this drug, but on the other provide testing services. There is a clear illogicality. Even if the testing were provided and paid for by someone other than the government, could not the police simply wait at the out door, check and the arrest those coming through with drugs?
Yeah. So that happens then people stop getting their drugs checked and die.
And, from your arguments, are cool with that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Even if the testing were provided and paid for by someone other than the government, could not the police simply wait at the out door, check and the arrest those coming through with drugs?
Not if the state instructed them not to. Amnesties are occasionally implemented by the state as a pragmatic way to remove firearms from circulation, for instance. Logically speaking the police could hover outside and question people, but they don't because the state has an interest in taking illegal firearms out of the market.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Well and good, but the illogicality remains.
What do you say about my comment that if it be right to allow drug testing at these festivals, you should allow it everywhere.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well and good, but the illogicality remains.
It is not illogical. It has a very clear logic.
Logic:
quote:
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What do you say about my comment that if it be right to allow drug testing at these festivals, you should allow it everywhere.
Not necessarily. We allow gun or knife amnesties at certain points of time without feeling obliged to do it all the time. We have smoking zones and no-smoking zones. We have pedestrian-only areas in some cities but not in others. I don't see the axiomatic good in uniformity of application in time and place.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The amnesties come closest to this, but not quite there. I can't see any analogy at all with the others - you might as well say that we allow cars to drive on roads but rarely on footpaths.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well exactly. Why does a drug testing law have to be uniform and why aren't the gun amnesties quite there? You haven't made an argument.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well exactly. Why does a drug testing law have to be uniform and why aren't the gun amnesties quite there? You haven't made an argument.
Very simple - the amnesty operates so as to stop a continuing breach of the law - the firearm is returned and the offence ceases. Drug testing operates on the basis that the law is to be broken when the drug is taken.
[ 28. July 2017, 03:49: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
OK, I see that difference. And I can see why one could be internally consistent in supporting gun amnesties but not drug testing. But I don't see the leap from those differences to "That's why it's OK to have gun amnesties in some places but not others, and why we could only ever have drug testing if it applied everywhere all the time."
(A closer parallel to drug testing is the needle exchange programme, and although I think you are against those as well they seem to operate effectively in many countries without legal challenges.)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
But surely a gun amnesty is jurisdiction wide? Here, an amnesty could be given for a period in a state, but not necessarily in other states at the same time. I don't know enough about devolved powers in the UK to comment about amnesties there.
I raised the question of the extent of drug testing to explore how you were thinking. It seems inconsistent behaviour for a government to say it will pay for or conduct drug testing at what are, after all, profit making private venture, but not do so in the carpark of a suburban hotel on a Saturday evening.
While I know that there have been needle exchange programmes here in the past, I don't know if they're still current. I would have problems with them were they to be organised or paid for by the state.
[ 28. July 2017, 07:18: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think when you have a gun amnesty there are designated points where you can hand your gun in, and it doesn't work if you go over to police in other locations to hand your gun in.
I don't think it is inconsistent for a government to say it doesn't have gun collection facilities everywhere, and likewise that drug testing facilities are only available according to logistic constraints.
For drug testing there may be certain locations and patterns of provision that would be more prone to abuse (e.g. becoming a facilitation for pushers to demonstrate the value of their goods), and I would want to take that into account.
Needle exchange programmes are ongoing in Australia and the UK, and there are studies estimating the numbers of Hep C and HIV infections prevented.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I have no idea of the logistics of gun amnesties, but with the lower population densities here imagine that it would be at any police station.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
