Public shaming of drug addicts - Do you think its a deterant to drug use?

[eider]

In reference to the OP, NO, I don’t agree with public shaming of addicts. Tough love, certainly. Public shamers have no sincere intent of helping these people.

Agreed.
Now if this thread had been about public shaming of mega-rich tax dodgers, bad employers, dishonest leaders, etc...... that would be different.

 

[ok doser]

Agreed.
Now if this thread had been about public shaming of mega-rich tax dodgers, bad employers, dishonest leaders, etc...... that would be different.

So start a new thread

 

[Caino]

Public shaming of drug addicts - Do you think its a deterrent to drug use?

Do you think these kinds of images work to keep people clean?

Im curious to what your response is to this kind of thing is and what you think should be done. (be warned pic is graphic so ive put it in spoiler tags, please read article first.


Horrifying pictures show parents 'overdosed on heroin' passed out in car with four-year-old boy in back seat

WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGES. 47-year-old James Acord claimed he was taking the passenger who was slumped over in the passenger seat to a hospital – but he soon collapsed himself and police were forced to call in paramedics

Spoiler

I'm in recovery from addiction. Those pictures just show the truth which could be positive in a number of ways. Its like showing what an abortion really looks like.

 

[Caino]

To be honest, the whole sin concept seems very tenuous on several levels. I appreciate that you buy into the Christian God worldview and I don't criticize you for it. I was there also in times past. But....when faith and superstition are put aside, there's precious little substance left.
Anyway, drug dependency and addiction are surely matters of the health profession, not legal.

Sin is deliberate disloyalty to deity.

 

[Omniskeptical]

You're of course using the word liberty as libertarians use it, not the true meaning as in liberty/freedom from sin. BTW, I've asked this of many libertarians before but never received an answer (I'll pause so you can tell me you're not one) : Why would libertarians expect discipline and self discipline, both which are moral actions, to be involved in inherently immoral acts like recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution?

If I could report you for being an socialist liberal ignoramus-- I would.

 

[ok doser]

Why ... expect discipline and self discipline, both which are moral actions, to be involved in inherently immoral acts like recreational drug use ...

I believe you can puzzle your way through an answer to this one on your own if you only consider the manner in which most Americans recreationally use the drugs alcohol, caffeine and nicotine in a manner consistent with discipline and self discipline. Certainly not all, but most.

 

[Right Divider]

I believe you can puzzle your way through an answer to this one on your own if you only consider the manner in which most Americans recreationally use the drugs alcohol, caffeine and nicotine in a manner consistent with discipline and self discipline. Certainly not all, but most.

Mat 11:18-19 KJV For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. (19) The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

You can't win either way.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCultureWarrior said:
Why would libertarians expect discipline and self discipline, both which are moral actions, to be involved in inherently immoral acts like recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution?

I believe you can puzzle your way through an answer to this one on your own if you only consider the manner in which most Americans recreationally use the drugs alcohol, caffeine and nicotine in a manner consistent with discipline and self discipline. Certainly not all, but most.

Except that like recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution, the use of alcohol, caffeine or nicotine aren't inherently immoral. The misuse of food (gluttony) or alcohol (intoxication) make those moral acts immoral, but whether "self discipline or "discipline" are used in acts of recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution or not, those acts will always be considered (based on biblical standards) to be immoral.

 

[ok doser]

aCultureWarrior said:
Why would libertarians expect discipline and self discipline, both which are moral actions, to be involved in inherently immoral acts like recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution?

Except that like recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution, the use of alcohol, caffeine or nicotine aren't inherently immoral. The misuse of food (gluttony) or alcohol (intoxication) make those moral acts immoral, but whether "self discipline or "discipline" are used in acts of recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution or not, those acts will always be considered (based on biblical standards) to be immoral.

Figured it would go right over your head. :sigh:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Figured it would go right over your head. :sigh:

Aren't you libertarians supposed to compare having a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a cigar afterwards with shooting up heroin?

Thanks for you answer though, as it confirms that you libertarians do know your limitations when it comes to debate.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Aren't you libertarians supposed to compare having a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a cigar afterwards with shooting up heroin?

Thanks for you answer though, as it confirms that you libertarians do know your limitations when it comes to debate.

The limitation is that you can't persuade stupid, i.e. ACultureWarrior.

 

[Yorzhik]

I see you confounding liberty with license. They are completely separate concepts. Liberty requires discipline, and especially self-discipline. License is the exact opposite. License is the absence of both discipline and self-discipline. it is, in effect, addiction.



As addiction is both bondage and subjection it is the opposite of liberty.



BTW, the definitions come from Webster's Dictionary.

The lack of due restraint means bondage and that means the lack of liberty is directly ahead. Drugs become dictatorial in the lives of addicts. License kills good morals and morality.

We here in the US have mistaken license for liberty for far too long. It's why we are now under totalitarian government. This is the reason I am not a libertarian as it has abandoned the love of liberty for the love of license. As Alexis de Tocqueville said: Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith. Libertarianism lost sight of this truth years ago.

This is what I explained to ACW a few posts ago on why I was not a libertarian. I agree that we cannot have liberty without morality, nor morality without faith. As you point out, libertarians must exclude morality and faith as the foundation of what they call liberty.

But I think the roll of law is a different discussion, although related. You make a great point about license and liberty. I'm going to remember this for future discussions it's such a good point. My answer is that the law is required to grant license to sin if it wants to be fair. Stated through example: If the law wants a businessman to be honest, it cannot look into his heart and fix any dishonesty found there. What it can do is hold businessmen equally to upholding their contracts making the dishonest ones compete with honest businessmen. It must also not choose who is honest and give them economic and regulatory advantages over whom the law has deemed dishonest because only the dishonest must prove how honest they are. In the same way, the two types of addicts we are talking about may do better under the two solutions we propose. I propose legality because that is the best way to remove a great deal of damage to society which has it's foundations in the mass market of drug users (which you would call the partiers) and you propose prohibition because that would remove a great deal of damage to what you would call the addicts (which excludes the partiers).

I'll grant you are correct in context. Take note how God's law worked in the garden of Eden. The law gave Adam and Eve license to sin, while they took that license and discarded their liberty. Could God have done it any other way?

 

[ok doser]

The limitation is that you can't persuade stupid, i.e. ACultureWarrior.

My fault in engaging the tard - I know better from previous experience.

 

[Gary K]

This is what I explained to ACW a few posts ago on why I was not a libertarian. I agree that we cannot have liberty without morality, nor morality without faith. As you point out, libertarians must exclude morality and faith as the foundation of what they call liberty.

But I think the roll of law is a different discussion, although related. You make a great point about license and liberty. I'm going to remember this for future discussions it's such a good point. My answer is that the law is required to grant license to sin if it wants to be fair. Stated through example: If the law wants a businessman to be honest, it cannot look into his heart and fix any dishonesty found there. What it can do is hold businessmen equally to upholding their contracts making the dishonest ones compete with honest businessmen. It must also not choose who is honest and give them economic and regulatory advantages over whom the law has deemed dishonest because only the dishonest must prove how honest they are. In the same way, the two types of addicts we are talking about may do better under the two solutions we propose. I propose legality because that is the best way to remove a great deal of damage to society which has it's foundations in the mass market of drug users (which you would call the partiers) and you propose prohibition because that would remove a great deal of damage to what you would call the addicts (which excludes the partiers).

I'll grant you are correct in context. Take note how God's law worked in the garden of Eden. The law gave Adam and Eve license to sin, while they took that license and discarded their liberty. Could God have done it any other way?

God's law gives no one license to sin. Where do you get that idea from?

God's law spells out exactly what sin is and in doing so takes away license to sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. Where does the law say it is OK to sin and there are no penalties for doing so?

As a drug addict I can say what leads to drug addiction and what discourages drug addiction, and what addiction actually is and what a drug addict experiences. You cannot for you have never personally experienced drug addiction. But, you have experienced addiction even though you do not realize it. Everyone on planet earth has experienced addiction. Sin is addiction. If you understand the power of sin to affect you and your life, and how impossible it is to resist in your own life with only your own power you understand what addiction is and how powerful it is.

Now, think of how many sins are restricted by law. If the laws restricting those sins were repealed do you think those sins would go away? Or would it make it easier to commit those sins? If the laws regarding murder were repealed do you think murder would increase or decrease? If the laws concerning all types of fraud were repealed do you think fraud would go away or increase? If the laws concerning child abuse of all kinds were to be repealed do you think the rates at which children are abused would decrease or increase? What you in essence are arguing about drug addiction and legalization is that you think in every instance I've listed that those behaviors would be decreasing. And that's just a few sins in which the fear of the penalties of law help reduce the frequency of many types of evil behavior in society.

What you're disregarding is the sinfulness of the human heart in your arguments. If I could have easily acquired alcohol at age 16 I would have been an alcoholic at age 16 because from the very first drink I took I could not have left alcohol alone. I drank myself to oblivion from my very first experience onward. And until I knew people involved in illegal drug use so I had access to illegal drugs I couldn't acquire drugs or I would have started my drug use earlier. Legalizing both would have increased the damage drugs and alcohol did to me because I would have started earlier in life. And it will do the same to millions of other people too. The problems of acquiring both reduced the years of my addiction by several years.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This is what I explained to ACW a few posts ago on why I was not a libertarian

Except that you identified yourself as a "mini-anarchist".

But let's say one wants to say that I'm a MinArchist. A MinArchist is a libertarian that believes in a minimal roll of government

Government has a legitimate role in society, and that's to punish those who do wrong and praise those who do good (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2: 13-15).

Just so that we can clear things up: What is your stance on the criminalization of recreational drug use, homosexuality, prostitution and pornography? Libertarians, i.e. "mini-anarchists' don't believe that government should be involved in criminalizing those things.

My bad, you said this in your post above regarding recreational drug use:

Yorzhik said:
"I propose legality because that is the best way to remove a great deal of damage to society "

(*Sigh, he tries so hard).

How about the other 3 issues?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

My fault in engaging the tard - I know better from previous experience.

Work on your...ahem...discipline.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Work on your...ahem...discipline.

But I am sure you shouldn't be giving out advice.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

But I am sure you shouldn't be giving out advice.

You'd be surprised at the discipline I use not telling you libertarians what I really think of you.

BTW, if Yorzhik should ever decide to respond to my post to him, I'll ask him how a society can be moral without having moral laws. Legalizing recreational drugs is hardly moral.

This is what I explained to ACW a few posts ago on why I was not a libertarian. I agree that we cannot have liberty without morality, nor morality without faith. As you point out, libertarians must exclude morality and faith as the foundation of what they call liberty.

 

[Yorzhik]

God's law gives no one license to sin. Where do you get that idea from?

I should have been more clear. First, I mean law of the state, not God's law. Second, by license I meant "allowing to", "not stopping someone from doing something". In that way I think my comments make sense. Put in a nutshell, all crimes are sins but not all sins are crimes.

 

[Right Divider]

Legalizing recreational drugs is hardly moral.

I guess that you want to make alcohol illegal too?

You are so self-righteous it's amazing.