Laws shouldn't be based on morality - General

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111481]Who the fuck gets to decide mental stability? Hate to break it to you but we're all crazy. We're philosophical, murderous monkeys. That's fucking crazy. Sanity is a delusion defined by the majority. Nobody should be punished under any circumstances for doing anything to themselves and themselves alone. It isn't the government's place to decide what is and is not insane.[/QUOTE] Oh, but it is. We need guidance from someone - the government, higher powers, whatever - all I know is that most of us (or all of us but fuck me if you'll ever admit that) are idiots who can't guide themselves for shit. Smarter people wrote all these laws, and they thought it was right. I for one agree with them.

[QUOTE=PacificV2;17111548]Oh, but it is. We need guidance from someone - the government, higher powers, whatever - all I know is that most of us (or all of us but fuck me if you'll ever admit that) are idiots who can't guide themselves for shit. Smarter people wrote all these laws, and they thought it was right. I for one agree with them.[/QUOTE] You realize I am one of those smarter people in the legal field right. Maybe you want to put your life in the hands of someone else, but I'll be damned if you tell me I need to do the same. Maybe you're too incompetent to make your own decisions but some of us have the capability to think far, far ahead.

[QUOTE=PacificV2;17111548]Oh, but it is. We need guidance from someone - the government, higher powers, whatever - all I know is that most of us (or all of us but fuck me if you'll ever admit that) are idiots who can't guide themselves for shit. Smarter people wrote all these laws, and they thought it was right. I for one agree with them.[/QUOTE] Smarter people? Just because someone is in the government, they are smarter? Do you not realize that the government isn't a well oiled machine that has perfected perpetual motion? It's just as broken and flawed as anything else, and the people working for it aren't exempt from those flaws. People push certain laws because they have a personal bias or agenda, not because they 'think about the people'. And all that aside, It's still not the governments job to be a grandmother to us all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111544]Then we should ban video games too. There is a legitimate psychological effect that has been studied and proven and they do have a tendency to alter the state of mind of the youth that partakes in them. Video games murder your family via proxy just like drugs. Your logic, not mine.[/QUOTE] Surely anything can be claimed to alter someone's state of mind.

[QUOTE=Malumbre;17111524]They're going to get them and do them anyway. I don't understand why you don't understand this.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that if we legalize drugs, we won't have a larger amount of people than we have currently using drugs begin to use them?

[QUOTE=PacificV2;17111548]Oh, but it is. We need guidance from someone - the government, higher powers, whatever - all I know is that most of us (or all of us but fuck me if you'll ever admit that) are idiots who can't guide themselves for shit. Smarter people wrote all these laws, and they thought it was right. I for one agree with them.[/QUOTE] "These people are fucking morons. We need to tell them what to do! With laws that apply to everyone. And take the right of choice away from those who do know what they're doing."

And I've read a ton of these laws. They were NOT written by smart people.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111544]Then we should ban video games too. There is a legitimate psychological effect that has been studied and proven and they do have a tendency to alter the state of mind of the youth that partakes in them. Video games murder your family via proxy just like drugs. Your logic, not mine.[/QUOTE] It isn't a chemical alteration, and compared to meth the alterations are incredibly minor.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111592]So you're saying that if we legalize drugs, we won't have a larger amount of people than we have currently using drugs begin to use them?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't start using drugs if they were legalized. Not because they give you eye cancer or anything, but because anything that causes me to lose even slight control is troubling. And I somehow doubt I'm a unique case in this.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111622]It isn't a chemical alteration, and compared to meth the alterations are incredibly minor.[/QUOTE] Drugs aren't either. They stimulate the production of naturally occurring chemicals in the brain that alter brain function. Video games have the same effect. Smaller, but still dramatic enough to notice.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17111631]I wouldn't start using drugs if they were legalized. Not because they give you eye cancer or anything, but because anything that causes me to lose even slight control is troubling.[/QUOTE] I'm glad to hear that, but even the voices we have here at facepunch aren't representative of the whole, due to our kind being (in general) a group with similar interests and ideas. [editline]11:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;17111653]Drugs aren't either. They stimulate the production of naturally occurring chemicals in the brain that alter brain function. Video games have the same effect.[/QUOTE] Drugs are 100% a chemical alteration. It is chemicals that remove the dopamine inhibitors, with a ton of other shit like braking fluid and drain-o thrown in (in some drugs).

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111622]It isn't a chemical alteration, and compared to meth the alterations are incredibly minor.[/QUOTE] Chemical in the form taken, stimulation is the same.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111656]Drugs are 100% a chemical alteration. It is chemicals that remove the dopamine inhibitors, with a ton of other shit like braking fluid and drain-o thrown in (in some drugs).[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand how drugs work. [editline]07:54PM[/editline] Stimulation can have the entirely same effect.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111515]It's grounds for immediate dismissal here on the first account.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this is unimportant to my metaphor. Let me rephrase it: [release]A company [highlight](a)[/highlight] has an employee named Stephen [highlight](b)[/highlight] who is very stupid. There is a law in Country A where the company is located, which relinquishes any and all liability that the company has in the event that a worker dies preventably [highlight](c)[/highlight]. This means that the company does not suffer greatly if a worker is killed. Stephen is doing something stupid, trying to declog a wood chipper with his feet[highlight](d)[/highlight]. His managers scold him, but he keeps doing it. Is it [I]wrong[/I] to totally prevent Stephen from doing this [highlight](e)[/highlight] for his own safety?[/release] [release]The USA [highlight](a)[/highlight] has a citizen named Stephen [highlight](b)[/highlight] who is very stupid. If [I]one[/I] citizen dies, the country is not terribly affected [highlight](c)[/highlight]. Stephen is doing something stupid, driving without a seatbelt [highlight](d)[/highlight]. Is it morally wrong to fine Stephen unless he puts his seatbelt on?[/release] THERE. (a) in situation A corresponds to (a) in situation B. Do you see my point? [B]IT'S NOT ABOUT CORPORATE LIABILITY. I'm not saying that either party in this debate would be in support of such a law.[/B]

Drugs achieve the effect easier because they are ingested rather than perceived.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111683]I don't think you understand how drugs work. [editline]07:54PM[/editline] Stimulation can have the entirely same effect.[/QUOTE] Video games can give you smoker lung and kill brain cells through use of toxic chemicals, among other things?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111693]Yeah, this is unimportant to my metaphor. Let me rephrase it:[list] [*]A company [highlight](a)[/highlight] has an employee named Stephen [highlight](b)[/highlight] who is very stupid. There is a law in Country A where the company is located, which relinquishes any and all liability that the company has in the event that a worker dies preventably [highlight](c)[/highlight]. This means that the company does not suffer greatly if a worker is killed. Stephen is doing something stupid, trying to declog a wood chipper with his feet[highlight](d)[/highlight]. His managers scold him, but he keeps doing it. Is it [I]wrong[/I] to totally prevent Stephen from doing this [highlight](e)[/highlight] for his own safety? [*]The USA [highlight](a)[/highlight] has a citizen named Stephen [highlight](b)[/highlight] who is very stupid. If [I]one[/I] citizen dies, the country is not terribly affected [highlight](c)[/highlight]. Stephen is doing something stupid, driving without a seatbelt [highlight](d)[/highlight]. Is it morally wrong to fine Stephen unless he puts his seatbelt on?[/list] THERE. (a) in situation A corresponds to (a) in situation B. Do you see my point? [B]IT'S NOT ABOUT CORPORATE LIABILITY. I'm not saying that either party in this debate would be in support of such a law.[/B][/QUOTE] An individual doing a job acts on behalf of the company, not themselves. You have only one right when you are working, and that is the right to quit. [editline]07:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111712]Video games can give you smoker lung and kill brain cells through use of toxic chemicals, among other things?[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about damage, we are talking about brain function. You justified your argument by saying they make people dangerous. We have already established that people have the right to harm themselves. If you are abandoning the idea that drugs form a threat against non-drug users, you have no leg to stand on.

Lankist for president.

What? [B]Situation A: [/B]Stephen is being an idiot on his own accord. [B]Situation B: [/B]Stephen is being an idiot on his own accord. [B]Situation A: [/B]The company is not liable if Stephen dies. This is to prevent people saying "Of course I'd fire Stephen because otherwise I risk a lawsuit!". [B]Situation B: [/B]When one citizen dies, it has a minor impact on the company overall.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;17111743]Lankist for president.[/QUOTE] He could either parade us onto utopia or plunge us into anarchy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111713] We aren't talking about damage, we are talking about brain function. You justified your argument by saying they make people dangerous. We have already established that people have the right to harm themselves.[/QUOTE] Killing brain cells does not inhibit brain function? I just included the smoker's lung thing as a quick side effect. [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/[/url] When addicts use meth over and over again, the drug actually changes their brain chemistry, destroying the wiring in the brain's pleasure centers and making it increasingly impossible to experience any pleasure at all. Although studies have shown that these tissues can regrow over time, the process can take years, and the repair may never be complete. A paper published by Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, examines brain scans of several meth abusers who, after 14 months of abstinence from the drug, have regrown most of their damaged dopamine receptors; however, they showed no improvement in the cognitive abilities damaged by the drug. After more than a year's sobriety, these former meth users still showed severe impairment in memory, judgment and motor coordination, similar to symptoms seen in individuals suffering from Parkinson's Disease. In addition to affecting cognitive abilities, these changes in brain chemistry can lead to disturbing, even violent behavior. Meth, like all stimulants, causes the brain to release high doses of adrenaline, the body's "fight or flight" mechanism, inducing anxiety, wakefulness and intensely focused attention, called "tweaking." When users are tweaking, they exhibit hyperactive and obsessive behavior, as journalist Thea Singer's sister Candy did on her meth binges. "When she was high, which was almost always, she had to be on the computer -- diddling with programs to make them run faster, ordering freebies on the Internet," writes Singer. "Then computers faded, and she was obsessed with diving into dumpsters -- rescuing audio equipment from behind Radio Shack, pens from behind Office Depot." Heavy, chronic usage can also prompt psychotic behavior, such as paranoia, aggression, hallucinations and delusions. Some users have been known to feel insects crawling beneath their skin. "He picks and picks and picks at himself, like there are bugs inside his face," the mother of one meth addict told Newsweek . "He tears his clothes off and ties them around his head." The same article told the story of another former addict, who, even after five years of sobriety, can't go to the bathroom without propping a space heater against the door, in case someone is after him.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111759]What? [B]Situation A: [/B]Stephen is being an idiot on his own accord. [B]Situation B: [/B]Stephen is being an idiot on his own accord. [B]Situation A: [/B]The company is not liable if Stephen dies. This is to prevent people saying "Of course I'd fire Stephen because otherwise I risk a lawsuit!". [B]Situation B: [/B]When one citizen dies, it has a minor impact on the company overall.[/QUOTE] I work for my boss. My boss can tell me what to do. My government works for ME. I can tell it what to do. You do not see the glaring differences and that is sickening.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111759]What? [B]Situation A: [/B]Stephen is being an idiot on his own accord. [B]Situation B: [/B]Stephen is being an idiot on his own accord. [B]Situation A: [/B]The company is not liable if Stephen dies. This is to prevent people saying "Of course I'd fire Stephen because otherwise I risk a lawsuit!". [B]Situation B: [/B]When one citizen dies, it has a minor impact on the company overall.[/QUOTE] Why isn't the company liable if Stephen dies? Why are you comparing a job to citizenship.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111772]Killing brain cells does not inhibit brain function? I just included the smoker's lung thing as a quick side effect. [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/[/url] When addicts use meth over and over again, the drug actually changes their brain chemistry, destroying the wiring in the brain's pleasure centers and making it increasingly impossible to experience any pleasure at all. Although studies have shown that these tissues can regrow over time, the process can take years, and the repair may never be complete. A paper published by Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, examines brain scans of several meth abusers who, after 14 months of abstinence from the drug, have regrown most of their damaged dopamine receptors; however, they showed no improvement in the cognitive abilities damaged by the drug. After more than a year's sobriety, these former meth users still showed severe impairment in memory, judgment and motor coordination, similar to symptoms seen in individuals suffering from Parkinson's Disease. In addition to affecting cognitive abilities, these changes in brain chemistry can lead to disturbing, even violent behavior. Meth, like all stimulants, causes the brain to release high doses of adrenaline, the body's "fight or flight" mechanism, inducing anxiety, wakefulness and intensely focused attention, called "tweaking." When users are tweaking, they exhibit hyperactive and obsessive behavior, as journalist Thea Singer's sister Candy did on her meth binges. "When she was high, which was almost always, she had to be on the computer -- diddling with programs to make them run faster, ordering freebies on the Internet," writes Singer. "Then computers faded, and she was obsessed with diving into dumpsters -- rescuing audio equipment from behind Radio Shack, pens from behind Office Depot." Heavy, chronic usage can also prompt psychotic behavior, such as paranoia, aggression, hallucinations and delusions. Some users have been known to feel insects crawling beneath their skin. "He picks and picks and picks at himself, like there are bugs inside his face," the mother of one meth addict told Newsweek . "He tears his clothes off and ties them around his head." The same article told the story of another former addict, who, even after five years of sobriety, can't go to the bathroom without propping a space heater against the door, in case someone is after him.[/QUOTE] Then how is it any different when a child shoots up a school because he played too many violent games? [editline]08:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Billiam;17111765]He could either parade us onto utopia or plunge us into anarchy.[/QUOTE] Make no mistake, if I were the leader of a large nation I would be a tyrant. I am but a man.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111792]Then how is it any different when a child shoots up a school because he played too many violent games?[/QUOTE] Because the adrenaline release from meth is 12 times higher than than the normal levels, and 6 times higher than sex. You're telling me video games surpass sex in pleasure levels?

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111809]Because the adrenaline release from meth is 12 times higher than than the normal levels, and 6 times higher than sex. You're telling me video games surpass sex in pleasure levels?[/QUOTE] I'm telling you there is just as much psychological study that supports the notion that video games desensitize youth to violence and can in some cases be directly linked. [editline]08:01PM[/editline] Like it or not, you're being a huge fucking hypocrite.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111828]I'm telling you there is just as much psychological study that supports the notion that video games desensitize youth to violence and can in some cases be directly linked. [editline]08:01PM[/editline] Like it or not, you're being a huge fucking hypocrite.[/QUOTE] Things that chemically alter your brain have a much higher effect than video games. If we were to ban video games, we would also ban smoking and drinking (which of course, wouldn't go over well).

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111847]Things that chemically alter your brain have a much higher effect than video games. If we were to ban video games, we would also ban smoking and drinking (which of course, wouldn't go over well).[/QUOTE] So where do you draw the line between harmless and dangerous when both substances have the same, albeit variable intensity, effect? What level of altered brain function EXACTLY warrants contraband?

that would make weed legal and weed is the reason somone in my family got shot because some idiot smoking weed thought it would be funny to shoot somone and he did my family member AND two innocent children inside a car. (and my family member who got shot lived by the way and so did the children)

Torture should be legal any where on any terrorist.