Illegal Drugs

Originally Posted by Razekial

All of this can be circumvented by having a sober person with you. I don't see why something should be made illegal (or kept illegal, as the case may be) when most of the risks associated with it can be rendered moot by a responsible user.

Because you can't legally enforce that and can't take measures to ensure that this is being done, therefore the risk that people are circumventing this solution is simple enough. Plus the "beer lifeguard" as they are sometimes called has no legal force, so if his friends want to carry on drinking without him, they might get violent if he tries to stop them due to their intoxication. Etc etc.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

There is a risk yes, there is also a risk that this person we are interrogating knows valuable information.

Whether or not he has that information is moot - torturing him automatically renders any information given unreliable, whether it is true or not, purely because it was obtained via torture. Unless you can verify it instantaneously, information obtained through torture is useless. Torture itself creates a risk that you cannot believe what the person is saying precisely because of the fact that it was obtained through torture. Alcohol automatically makes you a risk to others, which is what makes it different.

However, everyone who drinks is not irresponsible and is going to violate peoples rights, nor is everyone who is suspected of terrorism actually guilty. Each has a risk associated with it, but is that risk justification for what you are taking/violating?

I'm not taking anything from them but the right to become a risk to others, just like if I take a gun away from you all I'm taking is your means of harming others, just like if I make assault illegal all I'm taking away is your right to commit assault. Under your argument, because some people may use force responsibly (such as in self-defence), there's no need to make assault and battery illegal.

I am not assuming anything they say is unreliable, I am simply making the comparison that banning something to save people is similar to torturing someone to save lives, both which are based on risks. The scenario you suggested is few and far between, but I do agree. Torture is harmful with potential benefits, as is legalized substances, the benefits being the personal freedom to do with you body what you will.

Torture in any scenario other than that which I mentioned does not have enough benefit to warrant its use, just like alcohol does not have enough benefit to warrant its legality. You may try to disregard the fact that torture renders information unreliable, but that is precisely why torture is unacceptable.

Remember back to the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four where Winston Smith was being tortured by O'Brien, or more recently the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Picard is being tortured by a Cardassian. They're being tortured to ensure their absolute compliance with their relative masters. They're being told to believe that there are five fingers, or however many fingers their master says there are, and as soon as that compliance is ensured they will give whatever answers their masters want to hear. But that's precisely the point - if you secure absolute obedience from someone by using the incentive of pain, you can never be sure that what they're telling you is the truth. They will confess to any crime you accuse them of, turn in any friends that you suggest may have conspired with them, accept any version of reality you propose to them, to avoid further torture. Whether or not what they say is true becomes irrelevant when you realise that any information you obtain from them could easily be a fabrication. Torture obtains the answers you want, not the answers which are true, even if they are the same thing. It perverts the very information you seek, such that you may never know which parts if any are true without being able to verify it.

So yeah. As I already said, torture (where the information cannot be instantly verified) and alcohol are both harmful with little to no benefit, their benefit does not outweigh the harm, and therefore both are unacceptable.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

So yeah. As I already said, torture (where the information cannot be instantly verified) and alcohol are both harmful with little to no benefit, their benefit does not outweigh the harm, and therefore both are unacceptable.

the only demonstrable harm alcohol does is to the user themself. You cant argue that alcohol consumption by one person harmed another. It just cant be demonstrated. Theres no causal connection. Alcohol doesnt force people to behave violently. Wouldnt he possibly have acted in the same way without alcohol? Id say telling me what i can and cant do to myself is whats completely unnacceptable. Why is there 'little or no benefit' from alcohol. enjoyment is the benefit. You might not want to say this enjoyment outweighs the physical damage, but i do. So who is right?

as for drugs in general, the softer, less (or non) harmful ones should absolutely not be illegal. to think i could have gone to prison for a number of years for selling cannabis to friends. Its ridiculous and completely unproportional.

As for harder, harmful drugs, im not sure. yes some people get sucked into a downward spiral into, for instance, heavy heroin use, and just cant see it coming until its too late. But why make it illegal, resulting in high prices causing more crime, leaving the market in the hands of gangs and dealers, and ending with production of dangerously impure drugs. Legalising them wont stop people ending up addicted, but it will stop some of the associated crime.

And even then legalisation doesnt mean just any shmo could walk into a supermarket and pick up a weeks worth of smack. It means much higher regulation of the market.

Originally Posted by Shroomeh

the only demonstrable harm alcohol does is to the user themself. You cant argue that alcohol consumption by one person harmed another. It just cant be demonstrated. Theres no causal connection. Alcohol doesnt force people to behave violently. Wouldnt he possibly have acted in the same way without alcohol? Id say telling me what i can and cant do to myself is whats completely unnacceptable. Why is there 'little or no benefit' from alcohol. enjoyment is the benefit. You might not want to say this enjoyment outweighs the physical damage, but i do. So who is right?

No, there is no causal connection between a normally competent driver getting drunk and having an accident is there? No causal connection between a person who's usually a responsible drinker deciding while drunk to get even more drunk and eventually starting a fight with someone? No causal connection between a person who is normally sedate and friendly getting rowdy while intoxicated? No causal connection between a girl who gets hilariously drunk, has sex with a man, then decides the next morning she regrets it and charges him with rape?

All of these things CAN happen while sober, but they have a higher chance of occurring while the offender is intoxicated, and in many cases the very fact that they're intoxicated JUSTIFIES it. Further, at least if they're sober they can be held responsible for their actions - if someone gets drunk and commits a "specific intent" crime, they may actually escape criminal liability because of their state of intoxication. I'm willing to bet if someone killed your girlfriend while drunk, and only went down for manslaughter instead of murder, where had he been sober he would have gone down for murder, you'd be well pissed.

It's scientific fact that alcohol inhibits judgment and impairs motor skills (that is, the body's ability to move), and it's been suggested that depending on a person's genetic makeup it can also make people violent too. So it doesn't directly cause harm, but it causes RISK of harm purely by its intoxicating nature, a risk that would be lessened if people were not intoxicated.

As for who is right, I am, because your personal enjoyment does not outweigh the harm caused to others or to society because your judgment was impaired. Society doesn't care about the individual's enjoyment, because the individual might enjoy going on a killing spree, but we don't allow that. Your personal enjoyment is irrelevant as far as the risk of harm to society is concerned.

as for drugs in general, the softer, less (or non) harmful ones should absolutely not be illegal. to think i could have gone to prison for a number of years for selling cannabis to friends. Its ridiculous and completely unproportional.

It's also unproportional for a man to only go to prison for a short time (because that's all you get for cannabis) when his house burns down because he put some chips on to cook while stoned, then forgets because his short-term memory was affected by the drug, and everyone sleeping in that house dies.

As for harder, harmful drugs, im not sure. yes some people get sucked into a downward spiral into, for instance, heavy heroin use, and just cant see it coming until its too late. But why make it illegal, resulting in high prices causing more crime, leaving the market in the hands of gangs and dealers, and ending with production of dangerously impure drugs. Legalising them wont stop people ending up addicted, but it will stop some of the associated crime.

Again, the intoxicated states resulting from the use of some drugs creates a risk to those around them.

And even then legalisation doesnt mean just any shmo could walk into a supermarket and pick up a weeks worth of smack. It means much higher regulation of the market.

Just like the sale of alcohol is heavily regulated? Wait, it isn't, all they make sure is that you're the right age, not that you can actually handle your drink or haven't already had too much to drink.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Whether or not he has that information is moot - torturing him automatically renders any information given unreliable, whether it is true or not, purely because it was obtained via torture. Unless you can verify it instantaneously, information obtained through torture is useless. Torture itself creates a risk that you cannot believe what the person is saying precisely because of the fact that it was obtained through torture. Alcohol automatically makes you a risk to others, which is what makes it different.

No, alcohol doesn't make you a risk to other people automatically, when my dad has a beer or two, he doesn't flip out. Ergo, not currently a risk.

I'm not taking anything from them but the right to become a risk to others, just like if I take a gun away from you all I'm taking is your means of harming others, just like if I make assault illegal all I'm taking away is your right to commit assault. Under your argument, because some people may use force responsibly (such as in self-defence), there's no need to make assault and battery illegal.

No, all you do is take the guns away from people who would use them responsibly, if someone has the mind to use a gun for bad, they will, all you do is get rid of potential accidents and domestic squabbles, which can't justify the amount of people who would go to jail for their guns or the amount of gun crime that would be created. Not to mention I could just go pick up one of the millions of guns off the black market.

The same is said of drugs, all you do is take it away from people who use it for their own pleasure and reasons, sure there are accidents but their prevention is not justification for all of the economic loss we endure because we put hundred of thousands behind bars for selling marijuana or being caught with it. Not to mention you are taking away a personal liberty, there is very little justification for that. By my argument, weapons which commit assault would be legal but the act would be illegal.

Torture in any scenario other than that which I mentioned does not have enough benefit to warrant its use, just like alcohol does not have enough benefit to warrant its legality. You may try to disregard the fact that torture renders information unreliable, but that is precisely why torture is unacceptable.

Alcohol itself doesn't have the benefit to warrant use, but personal liberties does. You aren't 100% sure if it is unreliable right? You are also not 100% sure that being drunk will hurt someone or even violate their rights. Therefore, knowing this, why would you not also torture that person, obviously the ends justify the means?

So yeah. As I already said, torture (where the information cannot be instantly verified) and alcohol are both harmful with little to no benefit, their benefit does not outweigh the harm, and therefore both are unacceptable.

Both are based on the risk of lives, if you don't torture this man, millions could die, and alcohol, if you let them drink, people could be hurt or killed. Neither is absolute, yet you argue that alcohol should be illegal to save those lives, or try to, so why then, would you not also advocate for torture because it also saves potential lives?

The personal liberty outweighs the potential harm.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

So why do you drink, Arbitrator?

Because it's practically impossible to socialize with drunk people if you're not at least slightly intoxicated yourself, plus it's not illegal yet. You may call it hypocrisy, but I don't make any show of finding it beneficial or liking being drunk, and most people who know me know of my opposition to alcohol and getting drunk for the sake of getting drunk, but I see no gain to having a stupid little personal protest against it, much like I see no gain in the stupidity of personally protesting something by not buying it when you will be the only one. It would be hypocrisy if here I was saying how evil alcohol was and yet while I was out was all like "I COULD NEVER LIVE WITHOUT THIS AWESOME STUFF".

Why am I so quick to point out that it's not hypocrisy, you ask? Well, it's because hypocrisy is a variety of lie, and lying is an inability or unwillingness to face the truth, a weakness many of us could do without, and a weakness I refuse to succumb to. Hence my respect for the Rule of Law - a government that only acts by a set of published prospective rules cannot be hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

No, alcohol doesn't make you a risk to other people automatically, when my dad has a beer or two, he doesn't flip out. Ergo, not currently a risk.

His judgment ability and motor skills is automatically affected, however slight, and there's no way of being able to regulate how much people drink either, so suggesting that it could only be made illegal to get stupidly drunk is hardly effective. Any amount of alcohol consumed automatically increases the risk of harm, however slightly, and that risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed, so obviously we want to keep the risk as low as possible.

No, all you do is take the guns away from people who would use them responsibly, if someone has the mind to use a gun for bad, they will, all you do is get rid of potential accidents and domestic squabbles, which can't justify the amount of people who would go to jail for their guns or the amount of gun crime that would be created. Not to mention I could just go pick up one of the millions of guns off the black market.

But it wouldn't be readily available for you, is the key point. Guns can't possibly be used responsibly, because everyone who does use them responsibly keeps them under lock and key so that if the situation does arise that they need to defend themselves, the burglars aren't going to wait for you to go get your gun first. All you're doing by legalising guns or not controlling guns is making them readily available for people who would use them for unlawful purposes.

The same is said of drugs, all you do is take it away from people who use it for their own pleasure and reasons, sure there are accidents but their prevention is not justification for all of the economic loss we endure because we put hundred of thousands behind bars for selling marijuana or being caught with it. Not to mention you are taking away a personal liberty, there is very little justification for that. By my argument, weapons which commit assault would be legal but the act would be illegal.

So why allow an invention whose sole purpose is to commit an assault if assault itself is illegal? There is no other purpose for guns in the modern day, we ban the very activity that offensive weapons have been invented for, yet some people still argue that we should be allowed to have them when the activity in question could be reduced by simply cutting off one means of committing it. We have a lot of knife crimes in Britain but I'm pretty sure that overall assaults and murders would be even higher if we had guns readily available (because again, it'd just be yet another means of committing the crimes in question). There's no reason for it, all you're doing is making them readily available should anyone want to do harm with them, for no good reason (because I certainly can't think of a reason offensive weapons should be legal based on their benefit vs harm ratio, considering their sole purpose is offence, and most people who would use them responsibly would also keep them so secure that when they actually become useful, they wouldn't have easy access to them).

With drugs, all you're doing is making them readily available to people who DON'T use them responsibly, and an example of this would be all the alcohol-related crime in Britain today. I remember the headlines on New Year's Day, it was terrible. We don't like it when people commit certain activities while drunk, yet we trust people to get drunk on the assumption that they will be responsible while doing so, making it readily available for people who don't for no good reason.

Alcohol itself doesn't have the benefit to warrant use, but personal liberties does. You aren't 100% sure if it is unreliable right? You are also not 100% sure that being drunk will hurt someone or even violate their rights. Therefore, knowing this, why would you not also torture that person, obviously the ends justify the means?

The ends do justify the means if the ends are actually satisfactory, which as I have already explained when it comes to torture they are not unless in that very slim scenario I described. It is irrelevant that we're not 100% certain - the more someone drinks, the higher the probability that their judgment will lapse and that they will become a risk to others, and therefore the lowest probability possible in relation to alcohol is when someone has no alcohol in their bodies whatsoever, and therefore it is much safer. It's common sense, why allow the risk to become higher when we could easily avoid increasing that risk in one way?

Both are based on the risk of lives, if you don't torture this man, millions could die, and alcohol, if you let them drink, people could be hurt or killed. Neither is absolute, yet you argue that alcohol should be illegal to save those lives, or try to, so why then, would you not also advocate for torture because it also saves potential lives?

The personal liberty outweighs the potential harm.

I do advocate torture only where the truth of the information is instantly verifiable, but in no other situation, for reasons I have explained.

Conversely, if you think my argument in favour of banning alcohol is wrong, shouldn't you also think that torture is wrong, considering that you're comparing my argument with allowing torture (a mostly false analogy but nonetheless)?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Remind me never to make you my designated driver.

I hate driving anyway, even when perfectly sober, because one little mistake and you end up with your head up your own arse in a pile of scrap metal in the middle of a flaming roundabout

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

His judgment ability and motor skills is automatically affected, however slight, and there's no way of being able to regulate how much people drink either, so suggesting that it could only be made illegal to get stupidly drunk is hardly effective. Any amount of alcohol consumed automatically increases the risk of harm, however slightly, and that risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed, so obviously we want to keep the risk as low as possible.

Yes we do, which is why we educate people to these dangers and make laws (no matter how ineffective).

But it wouldn't be readily available for you, is the key point. Guns can't possibly be used responsibly, because everyone who does use them responsibly keeps them under lock and key so that if the situation does arise that they need to defend themselves, the burglars aren't going to wait for you to go get your gun first. All you're doing by legalising guns or not controlling guns is making them readily available for people who would use them for unlawful purposes.

It is very easy to get get a gun illegally, as well as marijuana, so now all you have done is commit a crime to get something you would've had crimeless were it legal, so now you can be sent to jail over something which may produce zeo derogitory effects yet you want to ban everyone from that certain thing because some people act iiresponsibly, thats like going to a pool at the age of fifteen, ****ing everything up, and getting the age limit raised to 16 and ruining it for all the other 15 year olds, (It happened to me some *******s ****ed it all up.) Also, I believe a large percentage of gun related crimes were done with illegal firearms, feel free to research for yourself I am not claiming it as fact.

So why allow an invention whose sole purpose is to commit an assault if assault itself is illegal? There is no other purpose for guns in the modern day, we ban the very activity that offensive weapons have been invented for, yet some people still argue that we should be allowed to have them when the activity in question could be reduced by simply cutting off one means of committing it. We have a lot of knife crimes in Britain but I'm pretty sure that overall assaults and murders would be even higher if we had guns readily available (because again, it'd just be yet another means of committing the crimes in question). There's no reason for it, all you're doing is making them readily available should anyone want to do harm with them, for no good reason (because I certainly can't think of a reason offensive weapons should be legal based on their benefit vs harm ratio, considering their sole purpose is offence, and most people who would use them responsibly would also keep them so secure that when they actually become useful, they wouldn't have easy access to them).

It would not be illegal, assault would be illegal, the device cannot act unless a person uses it to commit the crime.

Guns are also used for hunting, but you are right, they are only meant to kill. However, at least here in America, we have a constituional right to bear and keep arms, and I trust the reasoning of the founding fathers as they have set up a very well off governing system. Also, it was never the guns nor the knives, it was always the people, and taking them away from people who use them properly and violating their personal rights cannot be justified to stop some people from maybe committing crimes, crimes that would likely be commit anyway.

With drugs, all you're doing is making them readily available to people who DON'T use them responsibly, and an example of this would be all the alcohol-related crime in Britain today. I remember the headlines on New Year's Day, it was terrible. We don't like it when people commit certain activities while drunk, yet we trust people to get drunk on the assumption that they will be responsible while doing so, making it readily available for people who don't for no good reason.

It is their personal liberty to get drunk.

The ends do justify the means if the ends are actually satisfactory, which as I have already explained when it comes to torture they are not unless in that very slim scenario I described. It is irrelevant that we're not 100% certain - the more someone drinks, the higher the probability that their judgment will lapse and that they will become a risk to others, and therefore the lowest probability possible in relation to alcohol is when someone has no alcohol in their bodies whatsoever, and therefore it is much safer. It's common sense, why allow the risk to become higher when we could easily avoid increasing that risk in one way?

If I torture someone, get lucky and save a city, that is easily justification. Also, I would like to say people would have access to alcohol anyway, illegal or not.

Conversely, if you think my argument in favour of banning alcohol is wrong, shouldn't you also think that torture is wrong, considering that you're comparing my argument with allowing torture (a mostly false analogy but nonetheless)?

I do think torture is wrong. Also, why is my analogy false, they are both examples of risk assessment and cost/benefit.

It is a sad day when one is unable to dabble in their own consciousness as they see fit without being deemed a felon.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Ain't that the truth.

But my point was: designated drivers go out and socialise with drunk people. I do it frequently. It's easy. Though I may have the advantage of being able to make myself 'think drunk'.

Well yeah, which is why I'd hate to be the designated driver anyway, I'd feel awkward around and trying to deal with drunk people.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Yes we do, which is why we educate people to these dangers and make laws (no matter how ineffective).

Clearly education is not effective enough as many people smoke knowing it's bad for them. Even banning it in most public places hasn't stopped people from doing it. And the most suitable laws would be ones to prevent people from getting intoxicated, not ones prohibiting certain behaviour while drunk.

It is very easy to get get a gun illegally, as well as marijuana, so now all you have done is commit a crime to get something you would've had crimeless were it legal, so now you can be sent to jail over something which may produce zeo derogitory effects yet you want to ban everyone from that certain thing because some people act iiresponsibly, thats like going to a pool at the age of fifteen, ****ing everything up, and getting the age limit raised to 16 and ruining it for all the other 15 year olds, (It happened to me some *******s ****ed it all up.) Also, I believe a large percentage of gun related crimes were done with illegal firearms, feel free to research for yourself I am not claiming it as fact.

A large percentage may well be committed using illegally owned guns, but we could cut that percentage by refusing to distribute them legally. As I said, I see no reason for them to be legal anyway, so it's not like I'm banning food because some people started a food fight - food is not only beneficial, but necessary, unlike alcohol which is neither beneficial on a greater than individual scale (if that) nor necessary.

It would not be illegal, assault would be illegal, the device cannot act unless a person uses it to commit the crime.

And a person cannot easily use it for its intended purpose if it isn't being distributed freely. You could argue that people can kill using crowbars, but crowbars have a variety of beneficial uses. Guns are primarily for assault, unless you think you could use the pistol-butt as a hammer, which a hammer is far better suited for.

Guns are also used for hunting, but you are right, they are only meant to kill. However, at least here in America, we have a constituional right to bear and keep arms, and I trust the reasoning of the founding fathers as they have set up a very well off governing system. Also, it was never the guns nor the knives, it was always the people, and taking them away from people who use them properly and violating their personal rights cannot be justified to stop some people from maybe committing crimes, crimes that would likely be commit anyway.

There is only one proper use for guns, which is to cause harm. Anyone who does keep one purely for self-defence usually keeps it strictly under lock and key, and as I said, a burglar isn't going to wait for you to go fetch it.

It is their personal liberty to get drunk.

It is also a personal liberty to be able to kill whomever I so wish, but that is denied to me in the name of Justice, as are many other liberties. Liberty is freedom plus responsibility, and responsibilities must be imposed by law before anyone takes them seriously.

If I torture someone, get lucky and save a city, that is easily justification. Also, I would like to say people would have access to alcohol anyway, illegal or not.

It doesn't justify how you obtained that information because you got lucky. The only situation in which torture can be justified is that in which the information is verifiable. It's like saying a soldier should not be punished if he disobeys a superior officer because he obtained results - he still disobeyed a direct order.

I do think torture is wrong. Also, why is my analogy false, they are both examples of risk assessment and cost/benefit.

Precisely because you can't compare the situation of banning alcohol and justifying torture because any information obtained by torture is automatically unreliable purely because of the method by which it was obtained. Alcohol should be banned because it has little societal benefit and plenty of societal risk, torture should be banned in all situations but that where it is instantly verifiable information and the potential harm if we don't outweighs the harm caused if we do. Two conditions there.

While alcohol may have a small, harmful effect on society. Banning alcohol would have a much larger and harmful effect on society, at least here in the U.S.

I view drugs in the same way. Keeping them illegal has much more harmful effects on society than it would be if they were legalized.

Lastly, I don't believe the government should be able to tell individuals what they can and can't do with their own body.

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

While alcohol may have a small, harmful effect on society. Banning alcohol would have a much larger and harmful effect on society, at least here in the U.S.

I view drugs in the same way. Keeping them illegal has much more harmful effects on society than it would be if they were legalized.

If the laws were strictly enforced it would probably cause less harm than they would if legal, due to the fact that they are not readily available to the average Joe Consumer. The very fact that for someone to take weed they'd have to break the law AND find a dealer does actually put some people off bothering with them in the first place for fear of being caught or because it isn't that easy, here in Britain anyway.

Lastly, I don't believe the government should be able to tell individuals what they can and can't do with their own body.

I don't know if you're saying this in response to me or just generally, but as a rule neither do I, but the fact that becoming intoxicated is not a clear-cut case of one doing something to oneself, but putting anyone around them at risk due to affecting their own judgment, is why this argument is irrelevant. I don't care what one does to oneself insofar as it does not affect others around one.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

How does impairing your judgement help?

(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise)

Because it helps me think on the same level as them and therefore I am capable of conducting a "conversation" with them. It also allows me to speak more fluidly rather than being conservative with words, but after some recent events I don't have quite as much of a problem with that anymore.

You may argue that it removing my inhibitions is beneficial to me, but for one thing many people behave like that while sober anyway and have little to no inhibitions, so when drunk they just affect their ability to think rationally and don't even gain that. For another thing it's not beneficial on a much larger scale than myself and the persons involved in the conversation for having the priviledge of my participation in that conversation, but it's not beneficial enough even on that scale to outweigh the risk that there could be a brawl involving us all and society loses several possibly productive members for a few days.

Or perhaps that wasn't where you were going at all?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Then why do you drink, Arbitrator?

Originally Posted by Me, earlier

Because it's practically impossible to socialize with drunk people if you're not at least slightly intoxicated yourself, plus it's not illegal yet. You may call it hypocrisy, but I don't make any show of finding it beneficial or liking being drunk, and most people who know me know of my opposition to alcohol and getting drunk for the sake of getting drunk, but I see no gain to having a stupid little personal protest against it, much like I see no gain in the stupidity of personally protesting something by not buying it when you will be the only one. It would be hypocrisy if here I was saying how evil alcohol was and yet while I was out was all like "I COULD NEVER LIVE WITHOUT THIS AWESOME STUFF".

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

So you do something you don't agree with to reap those benefits. But you've just argued (very effectively, I might add) why those benefits don't outweigh the costs.

Right now, the amount of good I'd be doing by holding a pathetic attempt at protest and refusing to drink on a personal level does not outweigh the enjoyment I'd obtain as a result of being able to more effectively socialise. But the amount of good I could do by banning alcohol as a whole and strictly enforcing that law far outweighs the benefit I could obtain from allowing alcohol to be drunk on a wide scale or drinking it myself - but I am not capable of doing that in my current position.

Plus on a personal level I know that I'm more liable to fall asleep than start a fight when drunk, and I don't have a car anyway, plus I'm not a very big guy, so I have a threat level of approximately zero. But if alcohol were to be banned, I would not think myself above that ban because of this, because we can't really test that sort of thing on a wide scale, and so I wouldn't expect an exception to be made in my case.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Clearly education is not effective enough as many people smoke knowing it's bad for them. Even banning it in most public places hasn't stopped people from doing it. And the most suitable laws would be ones to prevent people from getting intoxicated, not ones prohibiting certain behaviour while drunk.

I never said they would be effective, however, that is as far as we can go to protect ones liberties.

A large percentage may well be committed using illegally owned guns, but we could cut that percentage by refusing to distribute them legally. As I said, I see no reason for them to be legal anyway, so it's not like I'm banning food because some people started a food fight - food is not only beneficial, but necessary, unlike alcohol which is neither beneficial on a greater than individual scale (if that) nor necessary.

I never said guns were beneficial to anything other than hunting and self defense. I am not defending anythings efficiency level or it's applicability, I am defending peoples rights to own and use these items.

And a person cannot easily use it for its intended purpose if it isn't being distributed freely. You could argue that people can kill using crowbars, but crowbars have a variety of beneficial uses. Guns are primarily for assault, unless you think you could use the pistol-butt as a hammer, which a hammer is far better suited for.

I have big stick in my back yard, this big stick is not useful in anyway, except perhaps to beat the crap out of someone and starting me a marshmallow fire. Since it's harmful efficiency outweighs its good efficiency, this is inherently bad and should be banned?

There is only one proper use for guns, which is to cause harm. Anyone who does keep one purely for self-defence usually keeps it strictly under lock and key, and as I said, a burglar isn't going to wait for you to go fetch it.

And to hunt, but generally I agree even though this is not the only case.

It is also a personal liberty to be able to kill whomever I so wish, but that is denied to me in the name of Justice, as are many other liberties. Liberty is freedom plus responsibility, and responsibilities must be imposed by law before anyone takes them seriously.

Yes, it is your personal liberty to go and kill someone, but it violates there rights which is inherently wrong. Alcohol does not directly violate someones rights, therefore it is not inherently wrong.

It doesn't justify how you obtained that information because you got lucky. The only situation in which torture can be justified is that in which the information is verifiable. It's like saying a soldier should not be punished if he disobeys a superior officer because he obtained results - he still disobeyed a direct order.

The ends would justify the means.

Precisely because you can't compare the situation of banning alcohol and justifying torture because any information obtained by torture is automatically unreliable purely because of the method by which it was obtained. Alcohol should be banned because it has little societal benefit and plenty of societal risk, torture should be banned in all situations but that where it is instantly verifiable information and the potential harm if we don't outweighs the harm caused if we do. Two conditions there.

But it is not automatically false, just as drinking doesn't make you automatically violate someones rights. Torture, can save potential lives, just as drinking can put potential lives at risk, you are in the interest of saving as many lives as possible, so why, if you are against alcohol, would you not also be for torture?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I never said they would be effective, however, that is as far as we can go to protect ones liberties.

Ah but we CAN go further. A refusal to do so is to allow liberties to be violated, in fact.

I never said guns were beneficial to anything other than hunting and self defense. I am not defending anythings efficiency level or it's applicability, I am defending peoples rights to own and use these items.

But why should we allow people a right to own and use items whose sole purpose are the harm of others and whose responsible use render their potential benefits null? We shouldn't.

I have big stick in my back yard, this big stick is not useful in anyway, except perhaps to beat the crap out of someone and starting me a marshmallow fire. Since it's harmful efficiency outweighs its good efficiency, this is inherently bad and should be banned?

Are you suggesting we should ban wood? Do I have to tell you the practical usefulness of wood versus its potential harm? Obviously we can't just ban sticks, because sticks are really not that harmful unless you TURN them into weapons (an activity which could be illegal). Since wood has a variety of practical applications, we can't just ban it - we have to ban the activity. Since alcoholic beverages do not have such practical applications, we can ban the substances themselves.

Yes, it is your personal liberty to go and kill someone, but it violates there rights which is inherently wrong. Alcohol does not directly violate someones rights, therefore it is not inherently wrong.

It puts the rights of others at risk however, which is my entire argument.

The ends would justify the means.

The ends would justify the means, but he must still be punished because we can't let all soldiers think they can disobey direct orders. Hence, the ends (ensuring soldiers obey) justify the means (punishing a soldier who achieved results through wrongdoing), just like the ends (ensuring torture is not used) justify the means (punishing those who do use torture outside of those proscribed circumstances even if they do obtain results).

But it is not automatically false, just as drinking doesn't make you automatically violate someones rights. Torture, can save potential lives, just as drinking can put potential lives at risk, you are in the interest of saving as many lives as possible, so why, if you are against alcohol, would you not also be for torture?

Because again, torture can't potentially save lives purely because of its unreliability. We can't put information obtained from torture to practical use outside of the aforementioned scenario, because to rely on it would be foolhardy. The fact that you pervert the information by torturing is probably the main issue, not that you cause harm to obtain information or that you could be wrong, but the fact that if you torture the information becomes unreliable.

And in the scenario I've already explained where the information is verifiable and the risk great, I do support torture, so you're partially right.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Ah but we CAN go further. A refusal to do so is to allow liberties to be violated, in fact.

As well as violate others in the process.

But why should we allow people a right to own and use items whose sole purpose are the harm of others and whose responsible use render their potential benefits null? We shouldn't.

Besides hunting and self defense, I agree with you, however, another reason this right was instituted was for the civilians to be able to take arms and defend themselves against an organized force (the British most likely in those times.), however, we currently are not threatened by this, but I see no reason to revoke the right.

Are you suggesting we should ban wood? Do I have to tell you the practical usefulness of wood versus its potential harm? Obviously we can't just ban sticks, because sticks are really not that harmful unless you TURN them into weapons (an activity which could be illegal). Since wood has a variety of practical applications, we can't just ban it - we have to ban the activity. Since alcoholic beverages do not have such practical applications, we can ban the substances themselves.

No, suggesting I want to ban wood is like me suggesting you wish to ban metal. The stick in my backyard is long and heavy, not good for building, not good for burning, but very good for hitting. A gun is a piece of metal forged to a certain shape in order to fulfill it's intended use. This stick has also been formed in a certain way. Why then would the gun, who's sole usefulness is to cause harm, with very little other applications, be banned over my stick who is in the same boat? Guns are also not weapons until you turn them into weapons, anything can be used as a weapon, whether that is it's intended purpose or not is irrelevant because they needs humans to become dangerous. Not to mention bullets are the things that kill.

And just like the gun, alcohol, does not directly hurt someone, ergo, it is not inherently bad.

It puts the rights of others at risk however, which is my entire argument.

I agree, but so does driving a car, I don't feel that a risk of violation is grounds to go about banning a certain something, I know that you feel differently.

The ends would justify the means, but he must still be punished because we can't let all soldiers think they can disobey direct orders. Hence, the ends (ensuring soldiers obey) justify the means (punishing a soldier who achieved results through wrongdoing), just like the ends (ensuring torture is not used) justify the means (punishing those who do use torture outside of those proscribed circumstances even if they do obtain results).

Why would he be punished? His disobedience was justified, therefore he should not be punished, just as saving thousands of people would justify the torture used to get the information that saved those people. This would not encourage others to break rules, it would only them them know that they may violate orders for the greater good. However, we cannot un-torture someone, and therefore, if the information retrieved is false, then he was unjustly tortured.

Because again, torture can't potentially save lives purely because of its unreliability. We can't put information obtained from torture to practical use outside of the aforementioned scenario, because to rely on it would be foolhardy. The fact that you pervert the information by torturing is probably the main issue, not that you cause harm to obtain information or that you could be wrong, but the fact that if you torture the information becomes unreliable.

It means that the chance to save lives is reduced, we do not know whether it is false or not, we can not prove it conclusively either way. Since you are in the interest of saving lives and you are also in the interest of banning something which has harms based only on chance and are not absolute, why would you not also be willing to torture to save the potential lives that you are attempting to save through the banning of alcohol?

And in the scenario I've already explained where the information is verifiable and the risk great, I do support torture, so you're partially right.

The risk is much smaller in your given scenario.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

As well as violate others in the process.

Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, and I'm sure we're both agreed that the omlette is preferrable to the eggs.

Besides hunting and self defense, I agree with you, however, another reason this right was instituted was for the civilians to be able to take arms and defend themselves against an organized force (the British most likely in those times.), however, we currently are not threatened by this, but I see no reason to revoke the right.

I see no reason to allow it either. If people are going to revolt, they're going to be breaking the law regardless, and so they could just obtain the weapons illegally if they so wished. A government that assumes it can become corrupt is hardly a government I can have confidence in.

No, suggesting I want to ban wood is like me suggesting you wish to ban metal. The stick in my backyard is long and heavy, not good for building, not good for burning, but very good for hitting. A gun is a piece of metal forged to a certain shape in order to fulfill it's intended use. This stick has also been formed in a certain way. Why then would the gun, who's sole usefulness is to cause harm, with very little other applications, be banned over my stick who is in the same boat? Guns are also not weapons until you turn them into weapons, anything can be used as a weapon, whether that is it's intended purpose or not is irrelevant because they needs humans to become dangerous. Not to mention bullets are the things that kill.

And just like the gun, alcohol, does not directly hurt someone, ergo, it is not inherently bad.

The gun is manufactured for the purpose of causing harm, whether to people or animals. It is a device that propels a slug of metal at high-speed at a living target to take that target's life. It is a weapon. You can't argue that it isn't a weapon until people make it one - it was manufactured and designed to be an offensive weapon, and has no other purpose. Hunting is still using it as an offensive weapon.

The consumption of alcohol puts others at risk, just like driving under the influence of alcohol puts others at risk.

The stick in your back yard is presumably useful for something if it was manufactured to be like that, and if it wasn't manufactured to be like that then it is an offshoot of a tree and is therefore just plain wood.

I agree, but so does driving a car, I don't feel that a risk of violation is grounds to go about banning a certain something, I know that you feel differently.

My argument as a whole is that if something has great benefit to society then unless the harm outweighs the benefit it is permissible. If something causes great harm or great risk of harm and that harm or risk outweighs the benefit, then it is not permissible. Alcohol falls into the latter, as does a gun, but cars don't.

Why would he be punished? His disobedience was justified, therefore he should not be punished, just as saving thousands of people would justify the torture used to get the information that saved those people. This would not encourage others to break rules, it would only them them know that they may violate orders for the greater good. However, we cannot un-torture someone, and therefore, if the information retrieved is false, then he was unjustly tortured.

We can't allow people to take the law into their own hands. What you're essentially saying is that vigilantism that is justified should not be illegal, but that allows people free reign to do what they like as long as they judge it to be for the greater good. The entire point of giving orders and passing laws is to set a standard of behaviour.

If we let a soldier off for violating his orders, then he'll think that he can continue to take unreasonable risks as long as he achieves a result, but those unreasonable risks may not always be successful, and they may be genuinely harmful. Just like if we let people off for torturing people when they shouldn't have done (which under the current law is always), then they'll think that they can do it whenever they like as long as it achieves results and will continue to do so, and they may not always achieve results.

It means that the chance to save lives is reduced, we do not know whether it is false or not, we can not prove it conclusively either way. Since you are in the interest of saving lives and you are also in the interest of banning something which has harms based only on chance and are not absolute, why would you not also be willing to torture to save the potential lives that you are attempting to save through the banning of alcohol?

Because there's more harm being caused to the suspect than there is a probability of his information being reliable. It's all a balance - benefit vs risk.

The risk is much smaller in your given scenario.

The risk is much greater in my scenario. Many millions of people will die if I do not use torture in that scenario, and so torturing one person whom I know has the information and I can find out instantly if what he is telling me is a lie is justified. In any other scenario, the risk is that he will tell me a lot of tripe just to stop me from torturing him, and waste time and resources that we could have used to actually save lives. If we obtain information from a suspect through torture, we're going to send troops to the location he tells us, and we may end up finding nothing, which means he either lied to us, or only told us what we wanted to hear to stop us from torturing him. If we obtained information through actually valid means we wouldn't need to waste troops and time.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, and I'm sure we're both agreed that the omlette is preferrable to the eggs.

Yes I agree, but to me, as it is probably clear right now, I feel that your method would be breaking eggs, to only achieve a sloppy omlette where the eggs would've been better to eat themselves.

The gun is manufactured for the purpose of causing harm, whether to people or animals. It is a device that propels a slug of metal at high-speed at a living target to take that target's life. It is a weapon. You can't argue that it isn't a weapon until people make it one - it was manufactured and designed to be an offensive weapon, and has no other purpose. Hunting is still using it as an offensive weapon.

Your right, but it cannot be offensive unless the person wielding it is offensive. In which case, I don't think it matters what it was made for but rather the intended use of the aggressor, which is why I made my stick comparison.

My argument as a whole is that if something has great benefit to society then unless the harm outweighs the benefit it is permissible. If something causes great harm or great risk of harm and that harm or risk outweighs the benefit, then it is not permissible. Alcohol falls into the latter, as does a gun, but cars don't.

So you believe that the crime spawned and the luxury lost is preferable tosome drunk drivers and brawlers, who are a small percentage of the drinking public?

We can't allow people to take the law into their own hands. What you're essentially saying is that vigilantism that is justified should not be illegal, but that allows people free reign to do what they like as long as they judge it to be for the greater good. The entire point of giving orders and passing laws is to set a standard of behaviour.

If it is justified they will be exempt if deemed so by the court, if it is not they will be subject to whatever charges they are deserving of.

If we let a soldier off for violating his orders, then he'll think that he can continue to take unreasonable risks as long as he achieves a result, but those unreasonable risks may not always be successful, and they may be genuinely harmful. Just like if we let people off for torturing people when they shouldn't have done (which under the current law is always), then they'll think that they can do it whenever they like as long as it achieves results and will continue to do so, and they may not always achieve results.

I don't believe that is the case, people know when to act and when not to, some do, others don't and those that don't will show it and face the consequences and will likely not repeat the same kinds of actions.

Because there's more harm being caused to the suspect than there is a probability of his information being reliable. It's all a balance - benefit vs risk.

I agree.

The risk is much greater in my scenario. Many millions of people will die if I do not use torture in that scenario, and so torturing one person whom I know has the information and I can find out instantly if what he is telling me is a lie is justified. In any other scenario, the risk is that he will tell me a lot of tripe just to stop me from torturing him, and waste time and resources that we could have used to actually save lives. If we obtain information from a suspect through torture, we're going to send troops to the location he tells us, and we may end up finding nothing, which means he either lied to us, or only told us what we wanted to hear to stop us from torturing him. If we obtained information through actually valid means we wouldn't need to waste troops and time.

I think you may have misunderstood me, I meant that the risk of faulty information is less.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

If the laws were strictly enforced it would probably cause less harm than they would if legal, due to the fact that they are not readily available to the average Joe Consumer. The very fact that for someone to take weed they'd have to break the law AND find a dealer does actually put some people off bothering with them in the first place for fear of being caught or because it isn't that easy, here in Britain anyway.

I don't know how it is in Britain, but, here in the U.S., marijuana is easily accessible.

I don't know if you're saying this in response to me or just generally, but as a rule neither do I, but the fact that becoming intoxicated is not a clear-cut case of one doing something to oneself, but putting anyone around them at risk due to affecting their own judgment, is why this argument is irrelevant. I don't care what one does to oneself insofar as it does not affect others around one.

There is a difference between getting drunk, and drinking responsibly. I don't think it is fair to take away a freedom, because of a few bad apples.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

The gun is manufactured for the purpose of causing harm, whether to people or animals. It is a device that propels a slug of metal at high-speed at a living target to take that target's life. It is a weapon. You can't argue that it isn't a weapon until people make it one - it was manufactured and designed to be an offensive weapon, and has no other purpose. Hunting is still using it as an offensive weapon.

Guns are also used in sporting competitions, or for entertainment at a gun range.

Would you also support the banning of bows, swords, ninja stars, clubs, etc.? These are offensive weapons as well.

My argument as a whole is that if something has great benefit to society then unless the harm outweighs the benefit it is permissible. If something causes great harm or great risk of harm and that harm or risk outweighs the benefit, then it is not permissible. Alcohol falls into the latter, as does a gun, but cars don't.

Except, at least here in the U.S. the banning of guns, and alcohol would cause much greater harm than keeping them legal. I think legalizing marijuana and other drugs would actually benefit society, by reducing the tolls in our prison system, reducing time, and harming the profitable drug trade.