That comics are juvenile.
JediXMan's forum posts
I understand your general position. In the case of the "heavy drugs", again, if you legalize it, some people, especially the young and/or uninformed ones, may try it, just out of curiosity, simply because they have access to it. Put the bags of cocaine in the supermarkets (and if it's legal, there won't be any reason for not having them) and millions of people will suddenly die. On the same page, would you like also to remove from the MDs the monopoly of prescription?
(I have some anarchist friends that are in favor of it)
It depends on either situation. We're both speaking in hypothetical slippery slopes that go to extremes.
I would like to say that, despite what I have said, I am okay with the regularizing of drugs (among other things, such as prostitution, which is a debate for another time). Of course I know that hardcore drugs probably shouldn't be legal. My overall point from the get-go is that self-harm is the responsibility of the person who makes the decision to hurt themselves.
Thats almost impossible though, because people don't exist in a vacuum. Not that I disagree with you, as far as banning smoking, but unless you are speaking in a theoretical, hypothetical bubble scenario, everything that a person does affects others in some small manner, some way. Smoking for example, many of the health problems that arises eventually can require resources to deal with and treat. If a society expends resources to help such individuals, well thats resources that could be spent on other things. So either pay a certain price now, or pay it later. Sometimes the negatives of the pay later idea are more significant than the positives. This is similar to many things. So the rights if individuals to make choices needs to be weighed against individuals ability to be, in an ideal sense informed, mature, responsible about their decisions. Which is a factor in how societies form rules, guidelines, so on. This is (one reason) why smoking is so heavily taxed, its dangerous in the sense of how addictive it is. When something is highly addictive it can disable an individuals ability to think in a mature, informed and responsible manner. This is (one reason) why we have limitations on the sales of smoking (age for example) but there are other complicated factors at work too. Some children may have good parents, educational systems, and so could probably , generally make better decisions regarding choosing to smoke than many adults. This is why assigning responsibility… can get tricky, because no single individual has the power or capacity to be solely responsible for something. Again in less we are talking about a vacuum hypothetical or being colloquial.
Every event has ramifications. Everything causes ripples, which is why no one moment in the universe is like another. That said, I was speaking of direct harm, as in second-hand smoke. I wasn't talking about indirect or even the emotional harm of losing a loved one to drugs.
I do disagree, though. In the end, the decision is ours. In the world we live in - and I am speaking of the average citizen, not somebody who is impoverished - there is no excuse for ignorance. You make the choice to be ignorant, and you made the decision to smoke that first cigarette in the first place.
This is why types of government exist, the idea of a neutral third party to protect the interests of many, to settle he said she said situations. If you live in a society you have already, to an extent, given others the right to decide what is right or wrong, which isn't always the same thing as an opinion. Ideally one would hope those people are good at deciding what is right or wrong and or that the system that empowers them can rectify errors, produce better results with time.
But then you're saying that the majority is always right.
Again: I am speaking of the individual's rights to make (what we perceive to be) poor decisions, not the indirect harm that his/her decision will have on others.
@jedixman: So if I understand you correctly you would also legalize "heavy drugs"?
In a medical point of view I am violently against this approach. For some of these drugs, the addiction is coming VERY quickly, with a dependence incompatible with a social life, acute health issues+++ and chronic ones even more. Most people are aware of a few of these dangers, almost nobody (outside the medical corp) realize all the risks.
And that's their problem. People reserve the right to ruin their own lives, and I won't stand in the way of that. We can disagree with them, and even urge them not to. But in my opinion, nothing should be forbidden as long as it does not result in the harm of another person. If somebody does drugs alone, doesn't force people to do drugs, and even dies doing it... well, that is the result of their own choices. The responsibility falls solely on them. In the end, it was still a decision.
It's a radical approach. But to protect my essential liberties and yours, I have to protect the rights of individuals whose views and decisions I don't agree with. All or nothing; otherwise, you are giving somebody the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, and their opinion may not conform with yours or mine, resulting in the loss of rights.
- Robin (Tim Drake)
- Beast Boy
- Cyborg (depending on which Cyborg we're using)
- Some kids from Avengers Academy and the Young / New X-Men
My favorite team is the Teen Titans.
Also, I would argue (in regard to the F4) that the biggest lose is not the F4 themselves, but their associates, like Cosmic entities and the Skrulls.
You think it's a stupid right, they do not. Your opinion does not hold more weight than another individual's opinion - if anything, the opinion of the person whose life it is directly affecting has might weight.