At the end of the chapter, after three readings which establish the nature and extent of drug use and the associated problems, Hartmann gives us an example of a persuasive paragraph to analyse in which she answers the question: "What can be done about the problem of drug addiction?" (2007, p. 227).
It is Hartmann's answer to this question that prompted the latest poll for you to vote on, and which we want to discuss in the comments below.
So, what do you think? Is Hartmann right that all illegal drugs should be legalized to help solve the problem of drug addiction in societies?
- Of the three voting options in the poll, which do you think is right?
- Why are the other two options wrong?
- What arguments or evidence support your opinions here? You need support both for your own opinion and to oppose the contradictory opinions.
As the discussion progresses and you are persuaded from one position to another, you can change your vote when you are signed in.
__________
References
I strongly disagree with Hartmann that legalization of drugs can be the effective way to solve the problems of drug addiction. On the other hands, legalizing drugs leads more drug users to the temptation of trying more and more new kinds of drugs. Although Hartmann points out that the benefit of freely selling and using drugs help the countries to gain more income from tax paid by the growers, I don't understand for what reason they do this, as they have to spend such income they claimed that it's a large amount, on solving the problems created by themselves. If it is possible, the drug growers stop growing all kinds of addictive drugs, it would be really helpful, because there is no drug and there is no drug users.
ReplyDeleteI, also do not support a reason that all addictive drugs should be illegal in order to solve the drug problems. For some people, drug which is used as one of active ingredients, can help them to relieve from a sickness. For example, in the hopital, doctors use Sudafedrin (Pseudeophedrine) to treat sinus congestion. It will cause a big trouble for them if they cannot buy this drug.
Therefore, I agree that some drugs shoud be illegal. Some drugs should be permitted for specific purposes such as the medical treatments. However, people can find the bad ways to obtain their own benefits. Recently, in Thailand, Sudafedrin had been found missing from many hospitals. Why? It is used to make Yaa Ice.
Thank Lek.
DeleteIt's a very good start to the discussion: a clearly stated and well supported disagreement with Hartmann.
What do you think about alcohol: should the sale and use of that popular drug of addiction be legal or illegal - beer, wine, whisky, and so on?
Alcohol is one of the most dangerous and socially harmful addictive drugs, so shouldn't it be made illegal?
From her well presented arguments so far, I'm expecting Lek to argue that alcohol, such as champagne and Singha beer, and cigarettes should be illegal for exactly the same reasons that yaa baa and marijuana are illegal, and that the equally evil producers and dealers of those currently legal drugs should be imprisoned or executed when their socially destructive products are criminalised, and all the users also put into gaol along with the cocaine and ganja users.
DeleteHave I understood correctly?
Sorry for late replying. I have to seperate things you've mentioned above into two types: alchohol drinks such as champagne, beer or wine, and smoking substances such as cigarettes, cigar. Looking at the advantages of these alchohol drinks, we should make an exception of them, and at the same time, an effective regulation should be set up. The first advantage is related to human's health, alchohol drink in a certain quantity, can make our body feel warm. Some kinds of alchohol drink such as arrack locally distrilled, can be used as an ingredient of Chinese traditional medicine. In addtion, businessmen can get a deal by treating their potential clients with alchohol drinks.
DeleteHowever, to avoid any destructive causes, alchohol drinks must be sold in a particular place such as bar, pub, and alchohol drinkers are not allowed to drive. It has to be the responsibilities of the business owners to look after their customers. If anything happens that lead a harmfulness to others in society, they will deserve a severe penalty.
For cigarettes, I would say that must be illegal for the same reason as yaa baa.
What is a benefit? Why do people use alcohol? Why to people eat ice-cream?
DeletePeople use alcohol not for any health benefit, but for the very different benefit of enjoying it. Like ice-cream, alcohol, and cigarettes, give pleasure to users, and this is a very real benefit. It is the usual reason why human beings do things - it's the reason we chose steak over boring but far healthier soy bean curd (tofu).
And this is a real benefit. I think it is a serous mistake to think that enjoying something is not a benefit, is not useful. If we did economics or social health or human well-being by measuring only how much increased production resulted or how long people lived, and we completely ignored things like enjoyment, pleasure, fun, happiness, socializing, friendship and the like, there would be something seriously wrong with our analysis. Things are not valuable, beneficial and useful only because they help businesses produce more or because they help us to live longer. Indeed, neither of these things are worth anything at all unless they also contribute to people, human beings, us, leading more rewarding, valuable, satisfactory lives: this is the reason that business has any value, and it's because it allows us to enjoy things and take pleasure in things that life itself has any value.
Alcohol, cigarettes, ice-cream, yaa baa, heroin, champagne, beef, stupid comics, marijuana, garbage action films and so on, all have value because they give users the same sort of basic benefits: pleasure, enjoyment of life, and the fulfilment of wants.
I love to relax with mindless action films. They have little or no value as art, and don't contribute much to a healthy social discourse, but they still offer very real benefits to me and many others with the same low class taste in films. I don't much like alcohol and other drugs either, but I know that many others derive great pleasure and happiness from them, and those are real benefits, showing that all of these things are useful.
Or am I wrong? Is there some awful mistake in my argument? Please point it out if you think I'm wrong.
Our discussion here covers important points in academic work from two of the handouts this term. First, the handout on thesis statements makes the important point that we need to take a stand, to say something strong and definite that needs support. Lek's stand on cigarettes does this very well: she has said that they should be illegal, that the sellers and users should be imprisoned and perhaps executed, exactly as yaa baa sellers and users are now executed. Similarly, Lek has stated a clear stand on alcohol. Both of these are positions that need support. And this matters: if Harmann is right, then the Thai police are completely wrong to be interfering in teh sale and use of yaa baa and other illegal drugs: such police action is destructive to Thai society and harmful to Thai citizens. This is something we should worry about, especially as drug use and associated problems is so very common in society, not just Thai society, but every society.
ReplyDeleteSecond, a point that Lek's comments also exemplify well, is one that Stephen Law makes in his essay: when we hold beliefs that we act on, we want those beliefs to be reasonable; we must have good enough reasons for our beliefs. If we are going to, for example, use the law to force other people to follow our beliefs, then those beliefs must have strong enough reasons. This is why Hartmann has to write a paragraph to support her idea that all illegal drugs should be decriminalized to help solve society's drug problems.
The discussion here is an opportunity to practice both of these important elements of academic work: taking a stand and providing solid reasons for that stand.
An advantage of doing it here is that you have an opportunity to reflect on what others have said before responding, and to better formulate and support your own opinions, especially where you disagree with others.
Interestingly, so far the majority vote is that Hartmann is right, that current Thai drug policy is a serious mistake. Lek has suggested reasons why Hartmann is wrong, so those who are supporting Hartmann have to answer Lek's opposing arguments. Can you?
First,I think that Hartmann thought If all drugs be legalized, the people won't interest in them anymore.In my school,for example, there have a rule that forbid the student not to bring any snack in to school .So, what happening is the student try to bring snack in to school in every way such as hide it in the secret pocket that they made by themselves .I think that it is about nudge theory which Bic wrote it in our blog.But if Hartmann really right? If it isn't going to be like her thought, what should we do?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion ,I also agree with P' Lek that some drug should be legalized but some shouldn't.About the example,I think that P' Lek's example is clear enough for support this reason.So,I am not going to add more.But while I'm reading the comment about alchohol drinks, I have a question that popping up into my head "If we can create the rocket for go to the universe , why don't we create the drink which can give us the same quantity but not addicted?"
However,in my opinion,If I stayed in right or wrong world,In a right world,I would say that all of drugs should be illegal, but in a wrong world,I would say that yes,all drugs should be legalize because they rise our income and make us cheerful.But we're not in that each kind of world.We're in the world that merge up from right and wrong world.So, what I suggest to do is find or create the better option that can help us.In this world,nothing is perfect .All we can do is find the way to solve the problem which come out when the previous was solving.
And Cherry has given us good reason to doubt Lek's belief that "legalizing drugs leads more drug users to the temptation of trying more and more new kinds of drugs" (May 24, 2012 10:56 PM).
DeleteSo, who is right? Lek or Cherry? This seems to me an important since Lek's belief is probably a common one, and it is a common reason used to support criminalizing some addictive drugs.
Cherry also made a couple of other points which seem to me worth following up, but I'll leave those to others.
So, what does the evidence support on this important question?
DeleteWould legalizing all drugs likely increase drug use and addiction? Rainbow Gaga asked another good question relevant to this in our break which I hope she will post in this discussion thread.
Which belief is right?
Whose beliefs are right on this important question in the discussion?
Thank you Peter thought that was a good question. Well, I remember the question I asked Peter was why only one result/statement, which all drugs should be legal or all should be illegal, or just some, must be right, another one is wrong?? I just wonder that a same thing might turn out different outcomes in the different situation, like different places, person or time. And here, we are talking about recreational drugs. I mean the law that all drugs should be legal might suit for the society Hartmann lives where the people have good self-control, so it works effectively. However, it doesn't mean it will come out the same result in other countries. In other words, it's better to set strict discipline for someone who lacks of self-control. Do you agree with me?? ^^
DeleteI think that Rainbow Gaga makes a good point. It would, for example, be foolish for all countries to base their agricultural policy on rice production. That might work well for countries like Thailand, but would be disastrous for England. The reason is that there is a very relevant difference between the countries: their climates are completely different.
DeleteFor Rainbow Gaga's idea to be right in practice, what has to be shown, with evidence, to be true? That is, what is the relevant difference that has to be proven to exist?
And is this likely?
To the question, should all recreational drugs be legalized?,my answer is YES. Why? In my opinion, the government is to our parents, so we are to their children. As far as taking drugs only for recreating purpose is concerned, our government should educate people to do some activities in the healthy ways in order to sever recreational purpose, and should stop people to do something wrong. Sometimes, we need a strict rules to restrict us to obey. As we all know, no parent want a spoiled child because now his small behavior problems may cause him becoming a big social problem person in the future.
ReplyDeleteLet's take Singapore an example, the society they established is remarkable for its low crime rate , increasing prosperity , and clean look of the city due to their strict law, especially the death penalty. It is said that drug traffikes usually avoid transiting to Singapore because kidnapping, robbing with gum and drug selling shall be sentenced to death. Another frightening punishment is flagellation, maybe this is why nobody dare to destroy the environment, even littering.
From the point of view, I believe that the strict enforcement of law that all recreational drugs should be illegal, must can decrease the problem of drugs, even though it is impossible to end this social problem completely. A good social custom will be formed by both strict law and enforcement, just like the people in some countries where is with strict religious prohibitions are taken it as a part of life, which can also call it, a good habit.
Rainbow Gaga,
DeleteI presume from the support that you mean "No, not all drugs should be legalized".
Your arguments are good. I hope someone on the opposite side answers them.
Oh, forgiving my silly mistake, and thank you for telling me. Peter, you're right. My answer is "NO".
DeleteI make a lot of mistakes when I'm typing, and I usually don't worry about them, but sometimes I miss the word not, and that does matter.
DeleteAnd I'm hoping that someone will critically analyse Rainbow Gaga's very useful factual example of Singapore to show that those facts do not support the idea that making drugs illegal reduces drug use.
DeleteRainbow Gaga also brings up a point that Hartmann does not explicitly mention - the moral questions regarding what governments may and may not justly do to their citizens.
Are Singapore's laws just and moral? Why? What makes a law just or unjust? Morally right or immoral? And how might this affect Hartmann's controversial idea to solve drug problems?
As I've already commented, I like Rainbow Gaga's comment about what government's should do (May 27, 2012 7:28 PM), because it brings up the important issues of justice and moral right, along with the purpose of government, and these questions are perhaps even more important than the very practical facts on which Hartmann bases her argument favouring the legalisation of all drugs.
DeleteRainbow Gaga put it very clearly that governments should treat citizens like children. But this seems wrong to me. It seems, in fact, an excuse for dictatorship which is directly and totally opposed to treating people as citizens with rights whom the government must serve and who are in charge of the government.
In a democracy, or any system which respects people because they are in fact human beings, it must be wrong to treat some or many or all as if they are children incapable of making decisions for themselves, even if those decisions are bad, unhealthy, or just plain stupid (it is, on the other hand, OK to treat children as if they were children because unlike adults, children are in fact children). The cornerstone of democracy and just government is that it respect people, and that means accepting and allowing them to make and act on their own decisions as responsible, rational and moral agents - not controlling and treating them like machines, animals or slaves.
In such a state, based on democracy, respect and justice, the only reason for government interference in people's personal lives as they seek what they value and what gives meaning to their lives, is that they are actually harming other people directly, and the production, sale and use of drugs does not so harm other people. Therefore, laws against these things must be immoral; even if such laws were actually effective, they would be unacceptable because unjust.
I think all of drugs should be illegalized. In my opinion, the situation of drug addtion is very serious especially for teenager. There are many of risks that make them to be the victims of drugs trouble because the they would like to try many of experience. They will have the invite to take drugs from in everywhere such as friends, advertisments, movies, internet, etc. This problem drugs is not only addiction but it also the climinal problem in our social. I heard from the news that there are drug dealers in the prison. This is the bad thing that convict in case of drugs can use the mobile-phone inside the prison to make a deal on drugs. So I think all drugs should be banned and illgalized to our society. This is the good thing to make the high quailty of the social living.
ReplyDeleteKon,
DeleteThank you for reminding us of some important facts about the drug problems in Thailand.
But some drugs are banned now, and that seems to be making the problems much worse! Many, but not all, drugs are illegal in Thailand now, and it does not seem to be helping Thailand or Thai people, so perhaps it would help more to legalize them all.
Do you think that the current laws, which make some drugs illegal, are helping Thai society? The evidence that Kon has presented seems to me to prove very clearly that making some drugs that people enjoy illegal is a disastrous failure that does not help at all, that has no benefit for Thailand or any Thai people. Actually, I think the current drug laws do help some people, but that's another reason to legalize all drugs.
My last sentence is a hint that I hope someone will follow up to further strongly support Hartmann - as I think all of Kon's very useful facts support her idea.
DeleteKon,
DeleteDid I understand correctly? When you write that "all drugs should be banned and illgalized to our society", do you mean that beer, wine, cigarettes, cigars and champagne must all be made illegal and banned?
This is a likely response; indeed it seems to me more rational than banning some dangerous addictive drugs and not others, but I want to check that I've understood your idea correctly, that the executives of Beer Singha and other alcohol producers, and all shops that sell it are evil people destroying society.
Yes, I think all of them include cigarette and alcohol. I would like to say that two of these are the problem not only the person who smokes and/or drinks but also the another around him/her. Secound-hand smoker is the problem form smoking person. This is the problem that another persons who don't smoking have been suffered. Violation in family is one of the problem of drinking alcohol. Many of car accident especially in the long holiday is the another problem that come from drinking alcohol. In Thailand most people is buddhism. There is the five princlple that we repect. One of them is don't drinking. In my opinion, it means to cover all drugs. So I think the Thai government should ban all drugs. Some of drug can be used by description from the doctor to cure the painful and use them in the hospital only.
DeleteKon's factual evidence for drug use in Thailand strongly supports Hartmann's thesis because, first, it shows that after decades of following the same policy, the same strategy, that it is a total failure.
DeleteWhen a strategy to achieve some goal is obviously failing, sensible people do not keep repeating the same failure, they try something different. As Kon's facts tell us, drugs, both use and dealing, are so common in Thailand today that the decades long strategy of making some illegal must be said to have failed completely to achieve its goals. The shareholders in Thailand, the Thai citizens, should sack their managers for gross incompetence and for wasting more and more money on a strategy that is both a complete failure and does serious harm to Thai society and Thai citizens, especially Thai youth.
Of course, the same strategy of making some drugs illegal is also a failure in every other country where it has been tried - including Singapore, Rainbow Gaga's very useful example.
Why has this policy of making some recreational drugs illegal failed?
Perhaps because it ignores the fact that a lot of healthy, normal, sensible, responsible and mature human adults ... enjoy using drugs. From hi-so cocaine users at exclusive parties, to mates having a beer after work, to friends smoking happily over a nice wine at dinner, to beach partiers high on marijuana or yaa baa. Ordinary human beings, in the US, Australia, SIngapore, and Thailand, want to use a variety of drugs, and they think it is OK to do that.
And this is where making some of the citizens' drug choices illegal really starts to harm society far more than making them legal. But I'll let someone else carry on this argument to the next stages, which even more strongly support Hartmann.
Meanwhile, according to a report in today's Nation, two of Thailand's major drug producers and dealers are planning to profit even more by expanding their businesses, which produce massive social and personal harm to society and citizens.
ReplyDeleteShould producing and dealing this dangerous drug of addiction be legal when it causes so much harm, death, violence and tragedy to users and their families in Thailand and elsewhere? And if such a dangerous addictive drug can be legal, why can't every other addictive drug be legal?
What relevant fact justifies treating this deadly drug differently to other similar drugs which are illegal?
References
Rungfapaisarn, K. (2012, May 28). The Nation. Brewers get ready for launch of AEC. Retrieved May 28, 2012 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Brewers-get-ready-for-launch-of-AEC-30182936.html
I strongly disagree with Hartmann idea that all drugs should be legalize. I think same as P'Lek idea that we should legal some drugs that bring good things to our society. For example, using morphine in a medical treatment. If you legal all drugs,I think it will destroy our society badly. The price of the drugs will get lower and the sellers also go out of business because they cannot win the price war with the government. Finally the drugs still harm our people though we get a large amount of money from this business. When the drug price become lower, what will come after that. People can access to drugs easily with small amount of money, anyone can buy it as much as they still have money. Can you imagine one day, you are walking along the street and see many people are smoking opium in the footpath. If you smoke it too that's fine but if not It's such a terrible things in your life,you could see it anywhere in your country. I don't see any benefits from that drugs. You will become mad,fanciful,lonely if you eat them. I hope you don't want yourself and your parents to take it.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, if you legal it goverment should legislate excellent matters of law to protect your citizen . For example, goverment should restrict the age of the drug eaters not under 20. The real situation in Thailnad, it is impossible due to the poor law enforcement. You can see bribery, patronage system in any kind of company in Thailand. Altough you have excellent law but the authority ignore it, it will be useless. I think many governments around the world still think same as me. If you make drugs legal, it would very tough returning it into illegal.
Fair,
DeleteSo what about alcohol and cigarettes?
I think that in his latest comment, Kon very effectively points us to some solid and well-known evidence that alcohol - beer, wine, brandy, etc, and cigarettes - are seriously harmful to society and individuals (May 28, 2012 10:41 PM).
Must alcohol and cigarettes therefore be made illegal and the producers and sellers imprisoned or executed as with drugs such as yaa baa, which is about equally dangerous and "useless" to society as alcohol in its numerous popular forms at every level of society?
When I wrote the poll to vote on and the post above, I specified recreational drugs for the topic, not drugs generally. The topic of this discussion is not drugs, it is recreational drugs.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone believes that drugs should not be used in medicine; we do not need to argue in favour of these drugs, although the fact that we do accept this might be the basis for another strong supporting argument for Hartmann's, and my, thesis that all recreational drugs should be legal to sell and use.
The question that is all drugs should be legalized, I agree that some drugs should be legalized, such as, marijuana.
ReplyDeleteIn Netherlands, marijuana is legal. Why this country legalized this drugs? I believe that it can reduce the no. of user and it can control user because it has a law that limit quantity of marijuana(only 5 gram per day). It also legalized in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Colombia and Nepal, all of these country are developed country. Why they think differently?
For other drugs that have severe side effects, I think shouldn't be legalized. It can harm user and others in physical and psychological. For example, ya-baa has a severe side effect such as hallucination that always on newspaper headline(kill the children).
If you mentioned that using drug for entertain only I think it's fine. But government should legislate the law to cover drug abuse carefully. Also the authority must enforce the law straightforwardly. I think we shouldn't ban alcohal. In some countries that have low temperature, they use alcohal to make them warmer. Also alcohal could have benefit if we drink it moderately. I think if you ban alcohal you should ban junk food too. Junk food make a lot people in the world suffer from many diseases.
ReplyDeleteWhat is drug abuse?
DeleteWhy should the law treat it differently to other drug use, such as for entertainment?
Every drug has benefits - that's why people use them. I don't think that an argument based on benefits or lack of benefits can get you very far. Also see my longer response to Lek on this (May 29, 2012 8:25 AM).
My opinion is about the situation about additive sustances in Thailand. Giving information about the danger of additive sustances to our children is the good way, but it can't fight to maketing strategy from business company. I am a conservative about this problem. I focus on how to protect our children from this problem. This is the reason that I think all of additive sustances should be illegalized.
ReplyDeleteKon,
DeleteBut the problem is that the evidence you have presented shows that the policy of making some drugs illegal is a total failure in Thailand: it does not work, it does not protect children, it does not remove drugs from society.
Hartmann's solution also aims to reduce the harm done by drugs to children and others. Is her proposal likely to be more or less successful in Thailand than the current policy which has failed for many years to protect Thai children and society from drug problems?
I think there is a problem to enforce the law in Thailand. Many of local grocery shop sell alcohol and cigarettes by reduced the package. Alcohol sell in a little cup from a bottle. Cigarettes sell by seperate from 20 to 2-3. This is the bad situation that many people may not know. Marketing strategy is one of big problem because many of teenagers believe smoking and drinking alcohol is the symbol of maturity and it is very sucess.
DeleteKon,
DeleteI agree that law enforcement is a serious problem. It's another reason in favour of legalisation because the current laws strongly encourage corruption, and that is bad for all of society - as the US discovered when it made alcohol illegal from 1920 - 1933 and thereby gave the mafia an opportunity to corrupt every level of official life - a disastrous experiment in making drugs illegal from which the US has never recovered. A sad example of people with the best of intentions making everything much, much worse than it was before by acting without factual evidence or critical thinking.
Do you have any proposal that might help?
I think that legalizing drugs would help a lot since it would at least reduce the serious police, judicial and official corruption, quickly and at no cost. The police would also then be able to focus on real crimes that actually harm people and children.
I also found interesting Kon's comment that "many of teenagers believe smoking and drinking alcohol is the symbol of maturity".
It's interesting because ... it's perfectly true. Precisely because these drugs are illegal for non-adults, they really are symbols of the maturity that is associated with being adult, so again, we see that making things illegal actually makes them more attractive to teenagers!
The teens are right, so if some adults pretend otherwise, they will just be seen as deceitful fools by the teenagers, and that is not likely to held solve the problem of teenage drug abuse. I'm not sure what might be a good solution here, since I don't think that the sale and use of drugs should be legal for teenagers under the age of 18. Any suggestions for action?
When I suggested before that the argument some people use to justify banning some drugs, that they are unhealthy, led with logical certainty to the need to ban things like ice-cream, I did so to show that the premise was seriously flawed. But apparently some people think not: they truly believe that if something is unhealthy, that is a sufficient reason to ban it.
ReplyDeleteAs the BBC News reports in "New York mayor proposes ban on big sugary drinks", Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, is using exactly this argument to support a ban on large soda drinks: he wants to make large Cokes and Pepsis illegal because their high sugar content makes them unhealthy (2012). Naturally, for anyone who accepts the idea that being unhealthy is a good enough reason to ban something, this makes perfect sense. And it follows with perfect logic that ice-cream and chocolate must also be made illegal and the producers, dealers and users of such unhealthy products imprisoned or executed - for exactly the same reason that cigarettes, heroin, whisky, wine, yaa baa and champagne must be made illegal and their users turned into criminals.
Another possibility is that chocolate lovers might be foolish, but that they are not evil monsters destroying society, but then the same argument will mean that all drug user are also not evil monsters.
So, must chocolate, ice-cream, Coke and Pepsi be banned along with khao kaa mu (ข้าวขาหมู = rice with stewed pork leg)? It is a fact that these popular foods, along with many others, are all unhealthy, and unnecessary, and that we really would be healthier without them all. For anyone who argues that cigarettes and yaa baa must be banned because they are unhealthy, the answer must logically be that ice-cream, Coke, and khao kaa mu must all be declared illegal and the sellers and users thrown into prison and severely punished for to better serve society.
I can't help but think there is something seriously absurd and grossly unjust in this conclusion, but the absurdity and injustice are not in the relevant facts about ice-cream, chocolate cake and khao kaa mu, which leaves only one place for the absurdity and injustice to lie. Perhaps in a healthy democracy, citizens must have the right to make free choices, even if those choices are sometimes unhealthy, stupid or otherwise not what some people agree with? Perhaps this is what it means to respect people?
References
New York mayor proposes ban on big sugary drinks. (2012, May 31). BBC News. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18285462
I'm not sure this response will be sent successfully. Actually, I have just replies this blog a few minutes ago, but nothing shows up.
DeleteAnyway, I'm trying this one.
To reply this comment that I am not sure whether I understand your points correctly, I think that it is non-sense to consider that yaa baa should be banned by using the same assumption as ice cream's unhealthy food. One reason is that people can choose to have fruity or grainy ice cream, low fat chocalate cake, diet Coke, and Khao kaa moo with non-fatty part of pork. The most important reason is that it does not cause any harmfulness to their society because they will not become the evil monsters after eating them.
Lek's argument strengthens my point.
DeleteIf ice-cream is of a healthy type, not a sugary, unhealthy type of ice-cream, it should be allowed. But most ice-cream is not healthy - it's sugary, unnecessary for any health reason and causes serious social and personal problems with the cost of treating obesity and the related diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and so on: the health and economic statistics do strongly support New York's mayor's proposal to ban - soda, ice-cream, chocolate cake and so on really are bad for society and citizens.
As Lek makes clear, the healthy types can be permitted (are there such things as healthy ice-cream or chocolate cake?) and only the unhealthy ones, almost all, need to be banned because they are unhealthy. And as Lek also points out, the healthy types of pork can be allowed and only the unhealthy ones need be banned. As I walk around my area at night, I think it's the unhealthy types of pork that are definitely the most popular, so I guess a lot of people need to be punished for indulging in unhealthy eating.
Eating ice-cream causes harm to society in exactly the same way that using alcohol and yaa baa cause harm. None of these substances cause harm to society or non-users directly, they only cause harm indirectly and only in same cases: when most people use wine, or yaa baa or ice-cream, they just have fun, usually with friends. In some cases, alcohol and yaa baa affect the user leading her to go out and do stupid or violent things (alcohol especially is a major cause of violence, as it is of traffic deaths), but in most cases, people who use these drugs do not harm others. If they do it is that harm that is wrong and that should be punished, not the harmless use of the drug. Punishing people for harmlessly using a drug is as sensible and as just as punishing Mercedes Benz and banning their cars because sometimes people use them to rob banks or run down people on the street. Most people do not become evil monsters when they get behind the wheel of a Mercedes car, and most people do not become evil monsters when they have a glass of wine at dinner or a yaa baa pill at a party.
But yaa baa and alcohol do cause social harm in less direct ways: both reduce productivity when drunk or hungover employees to not work as well or take time off sick, and both create medical problems that are costly. But ice-cream causes harm to society in exactly the same way: obesity imposes very high medical costs, and reduces productivity when unhealthy workers cannot perform as well as healthy workers.
But is bad health reason to punish people with a prison sentence?
I'm very glad to see Lek continuing the argument.
DeleteIt's the only way to get closer to a right understanding and correct misunderstandings - and I want my misunderstandings to have a chance of being corrected.
And proving that not all politicians are liars or fools when discussing drug problems is the president of Guatamala in "Stop Following a Failed Policy". Here, President Otto Pérez Molina emphasizes the point that it is not sensible, is in fact idiotic, to continue with blind faith in a policy that the evidence plainly shows to be a disastrous failure, as the "War on Drugs" is (2012).
ReplyDeleteSadly, too many politicians in too many countries continue to prefer either foolishness or lies to sensible, humane and just drug policies. We must ask why they prefer the bad to the good, the irrational to the reasonable. Is it merely to deliberately encourage corruption and crime, or do the politicians, police and others who favour criminalising some drugs have some other motive? What do you think?
Or am I wrong?
Might there be some reason other than ignorant foolishness or deliberate lying to explain the continued existence of policies that are known failures and which cause such serious harm to society and citizens?
References
Molina, O. (2012, May 31). Stop Following a Failed Policy. The New York Times. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/stop-blindly-following-a-failed-policy
Instead of putting people in jail for the reason of taking unhealthy substances, there should have a mutual agreement in the community, where it is easier to control people who cause harm to society. For example, parents who allow their children to use yaa baa should attend awareness counselling arranged by the community administrators. The severe punishment will be applied, if they do the second or third of the same mistakes. This might not be the effective solutions. The main reason is that the government people hold only one word "benefit" when they perform their duties. So, it seems to be worthless for any policies set up to solve the problems.
Delete