Intoxicants and Personal Responsibility

Reading the news today and came across this:

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/179...ged-killer

Quote : Potent Combination May Have Set Off Alleged Killer

Quote : According to his arrest report, Clay and his brother partied the night of Saturday, April 14. Clay told police he drank some "dark liquor", took some "transformers" or Ecstasy, and smoked some "Sherm" or cigarettes dipped in PCP. He claimed he then fell asleep on the couch.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vega...d=16245448

Quote : Las Vegas Massacre Suspect Sexually Assaulted Three People, Cops Say

Quote : Clay was a person of interest in the family massacre, but police arrested him on Friday on an outstanding felony child abuse warrant. By Saturday, he was re-booked and charged for the double homicide of the family and a separate sexual assault of a 50-year-old woman in a nearby neighborhood.

Add to that today's report on newborns:
http://news.yahoo.com/number-us-n...14938.html

Quote : Number of US newborns with drug withdrawal triples

Note: triples = old stat was 1 in every 1000 births, new stat is 3 in every 1000 births


The question becomes: where is the line drawn? I agree when a person becomes intoxicated, he/she doesn't have full awareness or comprehension. That being said, it seems it's become a cause and an excuse as opposed to just an excuse.

lots of people aren't fit to be parents...unfortunately you don't have to be smart to get someone pregnant...

Quote from mohater : Reading the news today and came across this: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/179...ged-killer http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vega...d=16245448 Add to that today's report on newborns: http://news.yahoo.com/number-us-n...14938.html Note: triples = old stat was 1 in every 1000 births, new stat is 3 in every 1000 births The question becomes: where is the line drawn? I agree when a person becomes intoxicated, he/she doesn't have full awareness or comprehension. That being said, it seems it's become a cause and an excuse as opposed to just an excuse.

Sure, the problem is that any intoxicant can become a problem not just because it can be used irresponsibly but that use of intoxicants may cause one to lose their responsible nature. Alcohol is no different. This is a major portion of the prohibitionist argument.

The counter argument is that intoxicants can be used safely and responsibly, and making them illegal makes that more difficult. At a bar the bartender can call a cab and cut you off, and may even have the legal responsibility to do so. Additionally it's difficult to control the quality of illegal substances. When you buy a beer you know it's ABV and how it will affect you. When you snort a white powder, you have no idea what's really in it.

There are millions of dollars and hundreds of lives lost attempting to keep drugs out of people's hands. I think that the war on drugs has probably caused more damage than the use of drugs.

IMO if you choose to become intoxicated, you should be forced to accept personal responsibility for everything you do while intoxicated.

Quote from Mixels : IMO if you choose to become intoxicated, you should be forced to accept personal responsibility for everything you do while intoxicated.

I agree. In fact, the penalties should be worse.

Quote from Xygonn : I agree. In fact, the penalties should be worse.

what about for the people who want to quit but physiologically can't (addiction)?

Quote from bonkman : what about for the people who want to quit but physiologically can't (addiction)?

Well, they had better not drive while intoxicated, or they should practice their drug use in a safe environment.

They could also ween themselves off, or use more drastic measures like ibogaine.

Quote from Xygonn : Well, they had better not drive while intoxicated, or they should practice their drug use in a safe environment. They could also ween themselves off, or use more drastic measures like ibogaine.

A safe environment isn't always around when someone wants to get a fix. Addiction is a powerful thing.

They could wean themselves off. That'd be ideal, of course, and is what they want. But it's not a sure thing by any means. Addiction is a powerful thing.

I understand your logic, but it seems quite harsh to say "when you started taking this drug, you knew the risk. Therefore, you must pay super-drastic consequences even when you've been trying to stop for years." It's like punishing you for something you did when you were 16 even though you're 40 and know better now.

I do think that voluntary intoxication should not be a defense to criminal activity, but I'm not so sure that it should enhance penalties for criminal behavior.

Quote from bonkman : A safe environment isn't always around when someone wants to get a fix. Addiction is a powerful thing. They could wean themselves off. That'd be ideal, of course, and is what they want. But it's not a sure thing by any means. Addiction is a powerful thing. I understand your logic, but it seems quite harsh to say "when you started taking this drug, you knew the risk. Therefore, you must pay super-drastic consequences even when you've been trying to stop for years." It's like punishing you for something you did when you were 16 even though you're 40 and know better now.

Yes, but the reality is that YOU DID IT and therefore you are responsible. It's hard to make kids understand the full impact of their actions but it doesn't lessen their responsibility any. It's just that much harder to see the path they are taking...

Quote from bonkman : A safe environment isn't always around when someone wants to get a fix. Addiction is a powerful thing.

Probably more available when legalized.

Quote : They could wean themselves off. That'd be ideal, of course, and is what they want. But it's not a sure thing by any means. Addiction is a powerful thing. I understand your logic, but it seems quite harsh to say "when you started taking this drug, you knew the risk. Therefore, you must pay super-drastic consequences even when you've been trying to stop for years." It's like punishing you for something you did when you were 16 even though you're 40 and know better now.

Yep, well, life's a bitch. It's like telling a guy that's 400 pounds he has to start losing weight. It's not easy, but it'll help him in the long run.

Alternatively, let's say someone does something stupid like dive into shallow water when they are sixteen, and gets paralyzed. They are punished for the rest of their life. How unfair of nature!

Quote from bonkman : what about for the people who want to quit but physiologically can't (addiction)?

This goes along the same lines of the genetic predisposition to obesity.

It exists. It's real, but it's such a small part of the problem (people /1000 who have this genetic predisposition), addressing would likely not even dent the overall issue.

If you're just referring to people who have chemical attachment (withdrawal), the only reply is c'est la vie. You make choices in your life, you deal with the consequences.

Quote from Xygonn : Sure, the problem is that any intoxicant can become a problem not just because it can be used irresponsibly but that use of intoxicants may cause one to lose their responsible nature. Alcohol is no different. This is a major portion of the prohibitionist argument. The counter argument is that intoxicants can be used safely and responsibly, and making them illegal makes that more difficult. At a bar the bartender can call a cab and cut you off, and may even have the legal responsibility to do so. Additionally it's difficult to control the quality of illegal substances. When you buy a beer you know it's ABV and how it will affect you. When you snort a white powder, you have no idea what's really in it. There are millions of dollars and hundreds of lives lost attempting to keep drugs out of people's hands. I think that the war on drugs has probably caused more damage than the use of drugs.

The war on drugs is largely a failure as the enforcement has (mostly) focused on end users and not the bigger picture. Jimmy smoking a J in his room is generally not a problem. His dealer/dealer's distribution network, who evades capture, uses violence to maintain territory, etc is the problem.

Quote from tightwad : Yes, but the reality is that YOU DID IT and therefore you are responsible. It's hard to make kids understand the full impact of their actions but it doesn't lessen their responsibility any. It's just that much harder to see the path they are taking...

That's true, but that's not an argument for INCREASED penalty, now, is it?

Quote from mohater : This goes along the same lines of the genetic predisposition to obesity. It exists. It's real, but it's such a small part of the problem (people /1000 who have this genetic predisposition), addressing would likely not even dent the overall issue. If you're just referring to people who have chemical attachment (withdrawal), the only reply is c'est la vie. You make choices in your life, you deal with the consequences.

no it's not at all.

Unlike genetic predisposition for obesity, the neurological basis for addiction is present in essentially all addicts. Literally your brain changes in order to force you to have the drug even when you don't enjoy taking it.