Search

Ideas that are…

Search Ideas


35 ideas match your query.:

I have zero experience on the drug market, but I think it’s fair to assume that companies that want to get business by inhibiting people’s creativity rather than enhancing it don’t particularly care about consent.

I don’t expect honest advertising from such people. I expect trickery, not consent.

#4380​·​Dennis Hackethal, 28 days ago​·​Criticism

Predatory businesses can’t limit customers’ creativity without the consent of the customer, so these issues are inextricably bound.

#4378​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 29 days ago​·​CriticismCriticized1

I agree, but this criticism chain is about predatory businesses limiting their customers’ creativity, not their own.

#4375​·​Dennis Hackethal, 29 days ago​·​Criticism

It is not the business of the government to prevent people from severely limiting their own creativity.

#4374​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 29 days ago​·​CriticismCriticized1

denies human creativity

No, they’re still creative, and they could overcome the addiction if they knew how, but their creativity is being severely limited.

#4373​·​Dennis Hackethal, 29 days ago​·​Criticism

Getting customers addicted making it "so they cannot exercise their free will" denies human creativity, and opens the door for all sorts of draconic laws where people are "protected from themselves".

#4371​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, 29 days ago​·​CriticismCriticized1

Drugs are currently illegal. Although drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all-time high.

Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough to warrant taking away drug users’ legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) drug use.

#4362​·​Dennis Hackethal revised 30 days ago​·​Original #4343

Drugs are currently illegal. Athough drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all-time high.

Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough to warrant taking away drug users’ legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) drug use.

#4360​·​Dennis Hackethal revised 30 days ago​·​Original #4343​·​Criticized1

Not all cases of wanting more of something are cases of addiction.

I want to buy a second chair because I enjoy the first one, not because I cannot help but buy another.

Getting customers addicted means making it so they cannot exercise their free will (or have serious trouble doing so). They’re effectively unable to criticize ‘buy another’ as a course of action.

#4359​·​Dennis Hackethal, 30 days ago​·​Criticism

Making alcohol illegal has been tried and was disastrous. Drugs are already illegal, which is arguably also disastrous. Those who advocate MAKING most drugs illegal but not alcohol are, I think, people who want to outlaw weed.

#4344​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

Drugs are currently illegal, and though drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all time high. Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough, to off-set drug user's ability to use legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) society.

#4343​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

Drugs are too broad of a category. Is widespread cocaine use the same as occasional magic mushrooms? The latter is suggested to have neuro-protective benefits.

#4342​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

Subjectively applies to every good product that makes its purchasers want to buy more of it. Like good food, video games, comfortable chairs.

#4341​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismCriticized1

To produce, purchase, sell, or to use?

#4340​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago

If the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)

E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.

#4339​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

In today's society they only have this ability to a limited degree, and would still have to deal with the drug users in public.

#4338​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

Communities could exclude drug users.

#4337​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismCriticized1

Violating the rights of other people depends on whatever their rights are. If we replace it with "desires", or use a libertarian way of saying "aggress on", then it's really just up to the people. I'd rather not live around drug users (depending on the drug), even if none of them physically assault me. I.e. "violation" is subjective, and ultimately decided by the polity that creates the laws.

#4336​·​Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

Drugs are a net negative for society.
(This branch of the conversation has been moved to #4137)

#4139​·​Benjamin DaviesOP revised about 2 months ago​·​Original #4063​·​Archived

The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.

#4138​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 2 months ago​·​Criticism

Drugs are a net negative for society.

#4137​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, about 2 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized2

Would this work better as a criticism of #4058? That way, the relationship between these ideas might be clearer, and there’d be the possibility of a criticism chain.

#4134​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

Related to #4062, making any part of the drug trade illegal just gives gangs and cartels a leg up over law-abiding citizens.

#4133​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months ago​·​Criticism

But that way, you pretty much ensure that only scumbags sell drugs. And they definitely don’t care about their customers.

#4132​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months ago​·​Criticism

Getting someone hooked on an addictive substance to get repeat business is predatory. It’s not an honest way to do business. Even if consuming drugs was legal, maybe the selling of drugs should still be illegal.

#4131​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized2