If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
no, it isn't. Not when you consider you have probably spent your life looking after it, and your parents have done the same.
It certainly isn't moral to continue polluting your body after you have recieved some sort of treatment for that narcotic. Continuing is sticking 2 fingers up at the people who gave up their time and money to help you.
Continuing is laughing in the face of the parents of the child who died because the donor's organ went to you instead.....
George Best is the perfect example of an addict who doesn't care about himself or others. All addictions affect someone else, wether you realise it or not.
I think it is.
A person owns their body. Ergo, why can't they abuse it if they choose? With ANY property, a person can do what anything they please with it, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.
George Best owns his body. It's his prerogative as to what he puts in his body.
If your argument is to win, yes people should be free to pollute their bodies, "ergo" society should leave them to die.
I agree. So, say somebody gets hooked on something, then they go and beat up an old lady and steal her cash to fuel their addiction. This old lady is taken in to hospital and eventually dies from wounds to the head. And you say that this is moral?
Indeed, mankind was born with the ability to make decisions, but when somebody decides to go out and drive a truck under the influence of drugs (plus, there aren't any roadside tests for anything parat from alcohol yet) and the truck hits a bus full of school children because he was too fucked to know what he was doing; what effect do you think this will have on the kid who ends up in a wheelchair having watched his best friend die in that crash, or the parent of the little kid who died because a piece of glass was jammed somewhere in his leg and he bled to death?
But an addiction IS violating the rights of others when somebody goes out and breaks in to somebody's house to get cash for another shot.
Do you even listen to what other people say or ever look out of the window or read newspapers and hear about what effects these drugs can consequently have on some people? Or more, have you ever seen a smackhead, or somebody collapsed on the floor because their body has finally conked out on them?
I'm not saying whether drugs are right or wrong, but with all due respects kiddo, I'd go out there and see the real world before you make blind statements in two sentences. I don't care if my friends do drugs, but when I see them lying on the floor with black eyes because they've collapsed and hit the pavement, it makes me understand why things like that are illegal.
By the way, if you're so in to all this freedom, what do you think about child pornography?
And why don't you answer my other question?
People under 16 are not deemed ready for many things an 18 year old would be and as such a 14 year old cannot consent to sex or participating in pornography because they are not fully aware of the conscequences.
You go ask any girl or boy who lost their virginity at 14, and then ask how many regretted it. It's probably been done before, but I can guarentee the answer will be the same "I wasn't ready".
I don't believe that is moral. And I never stated it was. If someone does that then they should be prosecuted.
Again, they should be prosecuted.
I never listen to what others say as I've learnt long ago to form my own opinions on things.
Alcohol can do that, as can tobacco. Why not criminalise those substances?
What about the addicts themselves! The last thing and adict needs is a criminal record to show every future employer he/she was an addict. How is that going to help? ...especially if they've actaully managed to sort themsleves out. The law as it stands makes criminals out of people who either need help (addicts) or those that use drugs responsibly and do no damage to society.
The sterotypical view of a 'druggie' is created by those that have no real understading about the world of drugs. Very few drug users commit any other notable offence other than the taking of drugs themselves.
The vast majority of people use drugs - form alcohol to ecstasy, and MJ to caffiene! Drugs are part of society and people will always want to do them whether its heroin, or MJ, it doesn't really matter - people like getting high and that's the way it's always goioing to be!
The majority of acciedents drom 'drivng under the influence' are caused by alcohol, yet I don't see the call for alcohol top be made illegal. I can't believe that some of you people don't see the hypocrisy.
You'll defend your right to drink, cos you love getting trashed on a drug that's responsible for more violence and more deaths than any other illegal drugs combined! :rolleyes:
Making something illegal isn't going to stop people driving on it. Drink driving's illegal - how many people does that stop. Maybe the answer would be to make alcohol illega tool. :rolleyes:
No, surely muggin some old lady is immoral whether the attacker is on drugs or not. The mugger is the one responsible for these acts, not the drugs. If you got pissed up and shagged a big fat bird you'd like to blame the drink wouldn't you, when in fact it's your fault all along?
Why can't people understand that we can use drugs withought becoming junkies? ...just as they can drink without becoming alcoholics. Addicts remain a very small percentage of drug users.
Papers are full of shit and so is most 'drug info' supplied by the goverment. The people who know most about drugs are usually the users themelves. Check out erowid.org ...it'll open your eyes to a few things.
Do you really want to know about the effect the shit the media print can have - Leah Betts died because of shit reporting. After reading that people can die from dehydration after taking E, she decided to play ot 'safe' and drink far too much water. She died - form drinking too much water!
From what youy say you're the one that needs to wise up. :rolleyes: Don't be so patronising when you blatently don;t have a fuckign clue!
So why is alcohol legal then? I suspect that 99% of black eyes are casued by alcohol induced fights, and the people that are lying on the floor are pissed. Wise UP!!!
Drugs, users and dealers are VERY different, the law and society needs to recognise that clearly.
As to whether they are ethical or not, thats difficult because it depends where you draw the line of personal choice and responsibilty to society as a whole.
Drug use costs all of us, it harms the people who use and sometimes the people around them. Because of this society has to pay for greater health service and other costs.
BUT should we not have a society where people are allowed a degree of personal freedom, otherwise we could use the above argument for very serious infringements on what we eat and do.
Drug use is NOT going to go away, we should treat the problems users quickly and effectively and bring 'softer' drugs into a government system so they can be taxed to make up for the expected cost.
Society schmeity.
A person should not be bound because 'society' or the community says so.
So, who decided that a 14 year old couln't "consent"?
If your suggesting that a person should not be bound by society, does that mean you favour total lawlessness? Or it is up to the police to enforce the law and social pressure should be discouraged?
Says who?
The fourteen year old, or society?
The state determines whether it is against the law.
The state and society are seperate entities.
Society is a group of people in a community.
The state is the government.
A society could in theory exist without a government.
they do not cease to be members of society. all of society can be seperated into little lists, mechanics and writers remain a part of society as do local government workers and even mp's. the state is the aparatus that society builds to help that society order it's affairs.
For example, the state gives people rights, not a community of people.
That would be society
Who are the "faceless" Govt?
Members of that same society
Hurrr?
I wouldn't say that the state and society are seperate, that's like saying that an Alpha wold is not part of a pack.
Society without any government could in theory exist... but in practice, would be too hard to obtain basically because it measn the bourgeoisie would have to give up power.
BUT there should be a system where by the 'ordinary people' elect people who they trust to make descisions on their behalf. Well thats the theory anyway. If anyone can think of a better system we can try that.