View Poll Results: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Everything should be permitted that doesn't "harm others"

    32 68.09%
  • We should have some societal standards based on morals

    10 21.28%
  • We should have more standards than what we have now

    4 8.51%
  • Other

    5 10.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 147

Thread: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

  1. #41
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    our medical system prescribes worse than what the streets offer.marijuana is banned for medical use on a federal level but a synthetic shown to be the same as thc,is prescribed and less regulated despite the fact its way more pwerful,i think it was called marinol.we get more er visits from prescription drugs than illegal drugs.

    we prescribe adderal which is basically a weaker form of meth,we prescribe oxycontin which is super addictive.we prescribe percocet which sells for around 20 bucks a pill on the street,i can get high for a day with the money one pill takes,but to some its so addictive.

    i got prescribed percocet 30's ,which is equal to 6 normal percocets prescribed per pill,i was popping about 6 a day because of my pain,after i healed i ended up flushing the last 5 pills because people wanted them that bad.if a 5mg percocet can fetch 20 bucks,people were willing to pay me 300 for those 5 pills,never seen anyone pay that for any hard drugs,yet these arent very regulated because they were aproved for use.
    We have many ER visits because of drug overdoses of these medications. People abuse them and use them incorrectly to obtain more of a high. Others may drink alcohol along with it and cause an interaction.

    Personally, I think it's bad enough with how many people are prescribed and given addictive narcotics. Many people go to a physician complaining of chronic pain and are given narcotics to treat a pain that has no diagnostic reason behind it. People have learned how to farm out prescribes for their candy. In my opinion we need to have more regulations by the DEA upon prescribes who liberally write for this stuff.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Oxycontin is an opioid, but it isn't essentially heroin. Right now those medications are extremely, and I mean extremely, regulated. How is a war on drugs a money making scheme when it costs so much? And how does legalizing extremely harmful and addictive substances lessen the amount of addiction? If drugs are legal are less going to be using them?

    I agree somewhat that it's absurd to have people thrown in jail for using drugs (not selling) and I think things should be more rehab based. But legalizing illegal drugs is very harmful and would not benefit American society. People don't have a right to abuse substances nor do they have a right to self treat with legal prescriptive drugs.
    In Florida you can go from doctor to doctor all day, say you have pain, and get hundreds of pills a day, regulated my ass.

    And the war on drugs is a huge money making scheme, it cost's us money, the taxpayers, but for the government, the cops, the court system, the for profit jails, make tons of money, they are making a killing off of us. It's disgusting really. Also the prohibition of drugs gives a bunch of power, and money to criminals, you can't escape these facts, we legalize it, and there power goes down immensely. If I had a choice of having drugs controlled by criminals, or legit business, I would choose the business every time.

    Also, how far do you go with this? I mean, we have the right to abuse a lot of things, should we lock people up, and force people to lose weight from overeating? I mean, that can kill you, that is bad for society to have a bunch of fat people not running around, clogging up our health care system.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  3. #43
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    In order to answer the poll accurately, the second option must always be clicked. Making everything that doesn't harm others legal is a societal standard based on a morals. The reverse is also a moral standard.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    In Florida you can go from doctor to doctor all day, say you have pain, and get hundreds of pills a day, regulated my ass.

    And the war on drugs is a huge money making scheme, it cost's us money, the taxpayers, but for the government, the cops, the court system, the for profit jails, make tons of money, they are making a killing off of us. It's disgusting really. Also the prohibition of drugs gives a bunch of power, and money to criminals, you can't escape these facts, we legalize it, and there power goes down immensely. If I had a choice of having drugs controlled by criminals, or legit business, I would choose the business every time.

    Also, how far do you go with this? I mean, we have the right to abuse a lot of things, should we lock people up, and force people to lose weight from overeating? I mean, that can kill you, that is bad for society to have a bunch of fat people not running around, clogging up our health care system.
    Yes, Florida is notorious for pain clinic pill mills. And even here where I live we see these Floridian prescriptions. We do not fill them at the pharmacy I work at due to them being highly abused.

    I don't see why the government would logically have the war on drugs when it costs the government money. The government doesn't benefit from having to spend that money. The only reason I would see it going on as you say is if somehow prisons and police unions were contracting corruptly with the government to make a profit.

    And you are right, we do have the right to abuse lots of things, and I think it's bad enough already (personally I think alcoholics should be criminally charged and alcohol regulated more). Just because we don't ban all harmful things doesn't mean we should legalize more.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #45
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    13,376

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Yes, Florida is notorious for pain clinic pill mills. And even here where I live we see these Floridian prescriptions. We do not fill them at the pharmacy I work at due to them being highly abused.

    I don't see why the government would logically have the war on drugs when it costs the government money. The government doesn't benefit from having to spend that money. The only reason I would see it going on as you say is if somehow prisons and police unions were contracting corruptly with the government to make a profit.

    And you are right, we do have the right to abuse lots of things, and I think it's bad enough already (personally I think alcoholics should be criminally charged and alcohol regulated more). Just because we don't ban all harmful things doesn't mean we should legalize more.
    if we stopped the war on drugs and legalized marijuana,all those pain pills wouldnt be needed,and the pharmacutical companies would lose big bucks,why should you be allowed to cure pain for 60 bucks a week when they now require insurance to cover pills costing 100's a week.no one in their right mind would pay that much for pain medication when mj is so cheap,unless ofcourse they were forced t buy it.
    “[The metric system is the tool of the Devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I likes it!” – Abe “Grampa” Simpson”

  6. #46
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,432

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Illegal drug abuse is nor more harmful to others than legal drug abuse, unless your talking about all the crime associated with the sale, and distribution of it, though that is because of it being illegal, and those problems would go away if you made them legal

    Prostitution does not harm anyone either, unless you are talking about the women being abused by pimps, and their unfair wages, and all the STD's they can get, of course that would stop if you made it legal as well.

    See the patter emerging?
    You mean the pattern of wearing blinders and refusing to see the long-term consequences of "anything goes"? Yes, I see the pattern. Quite clearly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    That is the $64,000 question isn't it? It is fundamental to how we want to govern/be governed.

    Personally I think going to either extreme would be disasterous; I favor a middle-of-the-road approach. We should have some basic standards yes... for instance we've decided that a 15yo cannot consent to sex, even if she does consent, because her consent is too uninformed and so on. Public sex doesn't "hurt" anyone but I don't think it should be allowed; some fundamental standards of public decency make for a better society.

    OTOH trying to legislate virtue into law is something that ought to be done very sparingly and very carefully, when it is done at all.... else we could fall into a dictatorship of the well-meaning.

    EXACTLY where to draw that "go no further" line is always the question of course.

    Keep to the middle of the road please.
    Pretty much this. All of it, but especially the parts in red.

  7. #47
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,683
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    I hate being at the bottom of a page. Nobody ever reads my stuff and tells me how brilliant it was.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,459
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Lots of unlesses in there.

    STDs would stop if prostitution were legal? Really? Child prostitutes would no longer be in demand? Even more very young women wouldn't be drawn into the life if it were legal? Now. I could see legalizing escort-type prostitution. But on street corners? No freakin' way.

    If drugs were legal, there would be millions more drug addicts. Tens of millions. Drug addiction ruins lives...the person using...their familiy...wastes public resources. Marijuana? I'm with you there. The other crap? That would be a travesty.
    Actually drug abuse tends to self correct. Most of the drugs used today have been used in some form for a great many years, yet we managed to build a technological civilization.

    A generation burned down on crack. This form is far more addictive than its snorted counterpart and much cheaper than "fre-basing. So it took them by surprise. The next generation, having seen the wreckage is forewarned.

    When I first started getting high, one of my friends' mom was THE white heroin dealer in San Diego. Expoaure to junkies took heroin off our lists of things to try.

    Far too many of our problems with drugs derive from their illegality. People hide their use, which makes it harder for friends and family to intervene.

    Further, an obscene amount of deliberate misinformation is distributed through official channels as to the risks and consequences involved. They tell kids pot is just as dangerous as crack, kid tries pot, discovers it isn't anywhere near as bad a s they were told, and then tries crack or meth assuming they were.lied to about that as well and BANG! Big problem.

    In other words, much of what we consider "dangers" of drug use are DIRECTLY atteibutable to their illegality and not their actual inherent hazards. (Which there are, don't get me wrong. But they would be manageable hazards if we took a more enlightened approach to the subject. What we do now is akin to absinence only sex ed in schools. It simply does not work and is actuall counterproductive)
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    if we stopped the war on drugs and legalized marijuana,all those pain pills wouldnt be needed,and the pharmacutical companies would lose big bucks,why should you be allowed to cure pain for 60 bucks a week when they now require insurance to cover pills costing 100's a week.no one in their right mind would pay that much for pain medication when mj is so cheap,unless ofcourse they were forced t buy it.
    People don't have the right to treat pain with narcotics. Physicians and prescribers have the right to prescribe these medications. People can treat their own pain with Tylenol and otc pain relievers.

    Your argument would really only apply to using marijuana as a prescription. We already have prescriptive THC in the form of marinol/dronabinol. I think it's medically absurd to give someone weed to treat something when THC is already prescribable and to essentially allow them to smoke in their medications. We don't give someone a maintenance drug to be inserted into a cigarette to be administered. But I guess prescriptive marijuana is for another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I hate being at the bottom of a page. Nobody ever reads my stuff and tells me how brilliant it was.
    I think you're brilliant Di (even though I disagree with your opinion on this issue)
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Yes, Florida is notorious for pain clinic pill mills. And even here where I live we see these Floridian prescriptions. We do not fill them at the pharmacy I work at due to them being highly abused.

    I don't see why the government would logically have the war on drugs when it costs the government money. The government doesn't benefit from having to spend that money. The only reason I would see it going on as you say is if somehow prisons and police unions were contracting corruptly with the government to make a profit.

    And you are right, we do have the right to abuse lots of things, and I think it's bad enough already (personally I think alcoholics should be criminally charged and alcohol regulated more). Just because we don't ban all harmful things doesn't mean we should legalize more.
    It's not that hard to see why they would have it. With the for profit jails, let me say that again, for profit jails the more people you arrest, the more money they make. And non-violent drug offenders is what makes them money, and that's only one aspect. There are the cops who want more money for their departments, the alcohol, and tobacco lobby's giving money to politicians to keep other drugs illegal(especially marijuana), the pharmaceutical companies who want people to be addicted to the drugs they are selling. There are billions of dollars being made due our war on drugs.

    And personally, it's a philosophy level, I don't think making something illegal fixes the problem, it just hides the problem, and or puts it on someone else's shoulders, and also creates new problems. So while you may think you are solving a problem by making drugs illegal, you are just creating a black market, where criminals will flourish, crime will increase, and you will still have people addicted to the drugs. So what are you really accomplishing, other than making the situation worse?
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •