Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Drugs Epiphany

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
[Lol, I didn't take drugs and have an epiphany]

Basically, I was reading the newspaper when I saw an article saying that a man left a bar drunk and crashed into a woman. Now both died, but the womens relives sued the dead mans estate, and won. Now, the dead mans solicitors are suing the bar for providing him with the alcohol. Of course, if this case went through and they won, then, what's next? Bars get sued left right and centre if someone drink drives and dies (as in this case) or get rowdy and fight? i's illogical, and totally undermines the idea of responsibility.

Of course, let's replace alcohol with Ecstasy. Is it the burden of drug dealers to the responsibility to accidents and deaths caused when people buy E off them? Is it their problem that a man took Ecstasy, had an overdose and died? Obviously, not, or else we can cross apply the same logic to Alcohol. Of course, what's hilarious is drug dealers are arrested for being a scourge to the community, and tabloids will claim they've sold drugs to children. But is it really their responsibility? they're just providing a serve people demand. Obviously, if they poison the drugs with a substance that is harmful to the person that the person isn't in agreeance to taking, then it is their fault. But, if the people want these drugs, and the dealer is more than happy to prove them at a cost, then does the dealer hold a burden of responsibility for his product?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:49:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
[Lol, I didn't take drugs and have an epiphany]

Shame, this would have been a lot more interesting.

Anyways, the idea around making bars partially legally responsible in such cases is based around the idea of criminal negligence, whereby the bars are aware of the consequences of not stopping these individuals from getting behind the wheel, but they don't do anything to stop it. This is perfectly fair in my opinion, and would apply equally to ecstasy dealers in a similar situation (though ecstasy would have a lot more issues than alcohol, just to point out). Bars are aware of what could happen and should act accordingly to ensure these things don't. It's nipping the bud at its source; make the bars responsible through criminal negligence, and maybe you can stop these things from happening.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:50:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Of course, let's replace alcohol with Ecstasy. Is it the burden of drug dealers to the responsibility to accidents and deaths caused when people buy E off them? Is it their problem that a man took Ecstasy, had an overdose and died? Obviously, not, or else we can cross apply the same logic to Alcohol. Of course, what's hilarious is drug dealers are arrested for being a scourge to the community, and tabloids will claim they've sold drugs to children. But is it really their responsibility? they're just providing a serve people demand. Obviously, if they poison the drugs with a substance that is harmful to the person that the person isn't in agreeance to taking, then it is their fault. But, if the people want these drugs, and the dealer is more than happy to prove them at a cost, then does the dealer hold a burden of responsibility for his product?

Excellent points, Panda. For clarification purposes - people don't OD on ecstasy. The only ecstasy related deaths come from dehydration. In actuality, ecstasy is FAR safer than alcohol meaning your analogy is actually backwards in the comparison -- alcohol should be the illegal drug here, not E. Legalizing drugs would have a whole bunch of positive effects. Other far-more addicting drugs are legal and socially acceptable such as alcohol, caffeine and the most addicting drug of all: tobacco. Any health or psychological dangers from ecstasy, LSD (acid), mushrooms, etc. are easily applicable to those legalized drugs as well. The War on Drugs is a futile attempt of taking a demand out of the market place (similar to Prohibition - which failed) and the repercussions of legalization would have great effects on the economy and criminal justice system. Doing drugs is not unethical either. This is something I feel very passionate about -- Hurstman was supposed to challenge me to a debate about the War on Drugs (I'm Con) but he hasn't. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO DEBATE THIS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Also, Panda, I highly recommend the book This Is Your Country on Drugs. It doesn't advocate drug use but talks a lot about the philosophy and politics behind the drug war which I think someone like you would find very interesting.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:54:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:49:57 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
[Lol, I didn't take drugs and have an epiphany]

Shame, this would have been a lot more interesting.

Anyways, the idea around making bars partially legally responsible in such cases is based around the idea of criminal negligence, whereby the bars are aware of the consequences of not stopping these individuals from getting behind the wheel, but they don't do anything to stop it. This is perfectly fair in my opinion...

No it's not.

and would apply equally to ecstasy dealers in a similar situation (though ecstasy would have a lot more issues than alcohol, just to point out).

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Please tell me how one taking a lot of ecstasy is more dangerous than one drinking a lot of alcohol. In the best case scenario you could prove it's dangerous for the individual (and even that's a stretch as alcohol is far more toxic and the only thing E does is affect serotonin levels in your brain) -- whereas consuming a lot of alcohol can be harmful to others around you as well.

Bars are aware of what could happen and should act accordingly to ensure these things don't. It's nipping the bud at its source; make the bars responsible through criminal negligence, and maybe you can stop these things from happening.

Saying that a bar is going to prevent someone from getting drunk is extremely ignorant. For one thing, they've got other responsibilities (running their business, profit, etc.). For another it's not up to them to make personal decisions for others. Sure they can/should stop someone from getting belligerently drunk and driving HOWEVER they cannot be blameworthy if something slips by them. They have a moral obligation but not a legal one; they can't be expected to police every single person in their bar and then be held accountable for the bad actions of one. What if one drank alcohol at home and then drove? Should the liquor store be held accountable? Come on. Be reasonable.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:59:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Negligence is when YOUR actions end up unintentionally, but preventably, hurting someone.

The bartender wasn't the one driving.

He was tending bar. A perfectly legal thing to do.

It's not the bartenders job to ask if everyone has rides home... has their bicycle... or is within walking distance... or is planning on sleeping in the ditch out back.

The bartender's actions aren't unintentionally killing people... THAT would be the actions of Joe Shmoe who hops in his car.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:59:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:49:57 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
[Lol, I didn't take drugs and have an epiphany]

Shame, this would have been a lot more interesting.

Anyways, the idea around making bars partially legally responsible in such cases is based around the idea of criminal negligence, whereby the bars are aware of the consequences of not stopping these individuals from getting behind the wheel, but they don't do anything to stop it. This is perfectly fair in my opinion, and would apply equally to ecstasy dealers in a similar situation (though ecstasy would have a lot more issues than alcohol, just to point out). Bars are aware of what could happen and should act accordingly to ensure these things don't. It's nipping the bud at its source; make the bars responsible through criminal negligence, and maybe you can stop these things from happening.

Obviously people are intoxicated after leaving a bar, and thus their judgement is impaired, but at the same time should the bar be allowed to enforce a no-driving policy on a customer? I mean, within reason if the person leaves the premises and then drives the car well then they can't be responsible, but if the car is on their property, and they've failed to stop him from driving when it would be dangerous do so, then should they be allowed to enforce the law?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:01:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:54:39 AM, theLwerd wrote:
No it's not.

Mhm.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Please tell me how one taking a lot of ecstasy is more dangerous than one drinking a lot of alcohol. In the best case scenario you could prove it's dangerous for the individual (and even that's a stretch as alcohol is far more toxic and the only thing E does is affect serotonin levels in your brain) -- whereas consuming a lot of alcohol can be harmful to others around you as well.

I said issues, not "danger." And there's a difference in context as well; E is much less noticeable than alcohol, and I don't think its as easily detected. Get it now?

Saying that a bar is going to prevent someone from getting drunk is extremely ignorant. For one thing, they've got other responsibilities (running their business, profit, etc.). For another it's not up to them to make personal decisions for others. Sure they can/should stop someone from getting belligerently drunk and driving HOWEVER they cannot be blameworthy if something slips by them. They have a moral obligation but not a legal one; they can't be expected to police every single person in their bar and then be held accountable for the bad actions of one. What if one drank alcohol at home and then drove? Should the liquor store be held accountable? Come on. Be reasonable.

It is completely reasonable. Bars absolutely have a legal obligation to do this. And of course you can't blame them for every little thing; there are reasonable levels of blame. If they tried the best they could to the best of their abilities to stop this person from getting behind the wheel, they aren't liable for damages because they fulfilled their role. But if they did absolutely zip, not even have a sign, then they're liable for the consequences.

And why would the liquor store be held accountable? The difference between the liquor store and a bar is that one is consumed pretty much at point of purchase and in the very same establishment, while the other is not.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:02:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Perhaps if you can prove that the bartender knows Joe... and KNOWS that he always drives home wasted.. and has no other means of getting home...

THEN you might say he's negligently contributing to their deaths (in a moral sense)

though I like the idea of personal responsibility far too much to ever want that moral responsibility enshrined in law.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:04:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:59:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The bartender's actions aren't unintentionally killing people... THAT would be the actions of Joe Shmoe who hops in his car.

The bartender's actions make him liable. It's not hard to figure out. He failed to prevent an action he knew would occur.

Panda said:
Obviously people are intoxicated after leaving a bar, and thus their judgement is impaired, but at the same time should the bar be allowed to enforce a no-driving policy on a customer? I mean, within reason if the person leaves the premises and then drives the car well then they can't be responsible, but if the car is on their property, and they've failed to stop him from driving when it would be dangerous do so, then should they be allowed to enforce the law?

Bartenders do what they can within the limits of the law. That means voluntarily getting keys, calling for taxis, calling the police, etc. No ones asked them to jump in the middle of the street and stop people. We just ask for some preventative measures.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:05:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:02:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Perhaps if you can prove that the bartender knows Joe... and KNOWS that he always drives home wasted.. and has no other means of getting home...

It's not hard to see someone drunk, but yes, that's the entire idea - the bartender must know, and must be negligent in stopping it. Its not this, someone slipped out unnoticed, killed someone, and the bartender is responsible. It's based around the idea that you know and failed to prevent what you knew could happen.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:06:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:02:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Perhaps if you can prove that the bartender knows Joe... and KNOWS that he always drives home wasted.. and has no other means of getting home...

THEN you might say he's negligently contributing to their deaths (in a moral sense)

though I like the idea of personal responsibility far too much to ever want that moral responsibility enshrined in law.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:06:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:01:03 AM, Volkov wrote:
I said issues, not "danger." And there's a difference in context as well; E is much less noticeable than alcohol, and I don't think its as easily detected. Get it now?

You said that a bar tender is responsible for ensuring his customer is safe if he has a lot of alcohol at the bar, and the same could be said about an ecstasy dealer. However most E dealers are selling large quantities of the drug at a time meaning that 'responsibility' is impossible and kinda irrelevant. It's also irrelevant since E is illegal. If E was legalized then maybe you could make an argument. Even then I don't think the dealer is responsible for how people decide to use their product. If I am a gunsmith is it my job to make sure that my customers don't murder people? No.

It is completely reasonable. Bars absolutely have a legal obligation to do this. And of course you can't blame them for every little thing; there are reasonable levels of blame. If they tried the best they could to the best of their abilities to stop this person from getting behind the wheel, they aren't liable for damages because they fulfilled their role. But if they did absolutely zip, not even have a sign, then they're liable for the consequences.

I'm pretty sure that the average person can only have about 2 drinks before they're considered too intoxicated to drive. Most people who go to the bar have more than 2 drinks, ergo I'd say 90% of them are legally drunk (or too drunk to drive) by the time they leave. As matt said, can they babysit every single patron and make sure everyone has a ride home? Or ensure that everyone won't be driving soon? At best they can say "Don't drive" or inquire about a ride, but aside from that, there's nothing they can do. Not to mention most bars I go to (New York) are crowded and/or club-like meaning this kind of interaction is nearly impossible let alone keeping tabs on everyone.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:08:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:05:52 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/5/2010 10:02:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Perhaps if you can prove that the bartender knows Joe... and KNOWS that he always drives home wasted.. and has no other means of getting home...

It's not hard to see someone drunk, but yes, that's the entire idea - the bartender must know, and must be negligent in stopping it. Its not this, someone slipped out unnoticed, killed someone, and the bartender is responsible. It's based around the idea that you know and failed to prevent what you knew could happen.

no.

I'm saying him serving beer to random people without knowing or asking how they plan on getting home is OK.

HOWEVER IFF he knows that Joe's planning on driving intoxicated

THEN he would be somewhat responsible for serving him the beers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:08:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:06:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
If E was legalized then maybe you could make an argument.

Yeah, I know, L, that's the other context I meant it in.

At best they can say "Don't drive" or inquire about a ride, but aside from that, there's nothing they can do. Not to mention most bars I go to (New York) are crowded and/or club-like meaning this kind of interaction is nearly impossible let alone keeping tabs on everyone.

That's generally all that is required, just to point out.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:09:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:08:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
no.

I'm saying him serving beer to random people without knowing or asking how they plan on getting home is OK.

HOWEVER IFF he knows that Joe's planning on driving intoxicated

THEN he would be somewhat responsible for serving him the beers.

So... strangers = no responsibility, regulars = responsibility.

I see.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:12:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:09:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/5/2010 10:08:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
no.

I'm saying him serving beer to random people without knowing or asking how they plan on getting home is OK.

HOWEVER IFF he knows that Joe's planning on driving intoxicated

THEN he would be somewhat responsible for serving him the beers.

So... strangers = no responsibility, regulars = responsibility.

I see.

If you know Joe always drives home wasted... it would be morally dodgy to help him get wasted.

If Joe's a regular and you haven't a clue how he gets home....

Serve'em up!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:15:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:12:54 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If you know Joe always drives home wasted... it would be morally dodgy to help him get wasted.

So if a non-regular comes in, gets drunk off their arse, and I mean totally wasted, and you know for certain that they arrived and seem to be leaving in a car, there's nothing "morally dodgy" with letting them go?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:23:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2010 10:15:50 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/5/2010 10:12:54 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If you know Joe always drives home wasted... it would be morally dodgy to help him get wasted.

So if a non-regular comes in, gets drunk off their arse, and I mean totally wasted, and you know for certain that they arrived and seem to be leaving in a car, there's nothing "morally dodgy" with letting them go?

The bartender has no more responsibility than anyone else who knows that the people planning on driving are being irresponsible.

Perhaps you should try to convince them not to... BUT we all know how likely that is to work.

I suppose you could threaten to call the cops if they do...

But the Bartender's in the same moral spot as everyone else who knows what's happening IMO.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 10:26:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
though it would be a harder spot for the bartender as: IF he's calling the police on customers... He's prolly gonna get fired quick.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 1:41:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Of course, let's replace alcohol with Ecstasy.

How would you play E pong?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 8:48:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:41:47 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Of course, let's replace alcohol with Ecstasy.

How would you play E pong?

That might work. Drug supporters could get large amounts of E. Every time they get the ball in the cup of water they take a hit.

This solves everything. Every drug supporter over the age of 18 could play this game. The demand for drugs would bottom out. No more black market. WSA, you are a genius!
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:40:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2010 9:25:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
[Lol, I didn't take drugs and have an epiphany]

Basically, I was reading the newspaper when I saw an article saying that a man left a bar drunk and crashed into a woman. Now both died, but the womens relives sued the dead mans estate, and won. Now, the dead mans solicitors are suing the bar for providing him with the alcohol. Of course, if this case went through and they won, then, what's next? Bars get sued left right and centre if someone drink drives and dies (as in this case) or get rowdy and fight? i's illogical, and totally undermines the idea of responsibility.

Of course, let's replace alcohol with Ecstasy. Is it the burden of drug dealers to the responsibility to accidents and deaths caused when people buy E off them? Is it their problem that a man took Ecstasy, had an overdose and died? Obviously, not, or else we can cross apply the same logic to Alcohol. Of course, what's hilarious is drug dealers are arrested for being a scourge to the community, and tabloids will claim they've sold drugs to children. But is it really their responsibility? they're just providing a serve people demand. Obviously, if they poison the drugs with a substance that is harmful to the person that the person isn't in agreeance to taking, then it is their fault. But, if the people want these drugs, and the dealer is more than happy to prove them at a cost, then does the dealer hold a burden of responsibility for his product?

Two things, and you live in Ireland, so maybe they don't apply there, but this is how it works in the USA:
1) It is not that the drunk drank at the bar, which is why they are being sued, it is because the bartender was negligent. If the drunk had been served while obviously intoxicated, the bartender is liable because he made things worse. To my understanding, the bartender is not criminally liable, but civilly.

While this sounds overbearing on the bartender, it is his service that is impairing the drunk, who now that he is drunk is unable to be fully accountable for his actions (cannot form intent). Therefore, the bartender must exercise due diligence in taking precautions, like not serving someone too much.

2) The issue with drugs is they are illegal, and illegal activities are immune from the law; you cannot sue someone for under portioning the drugs you bought from them, and you cannot sue your bank robber partner for leaving you with a third of the loot. Therefore, you cannot be liable for damages resulting from engaging in a criminal activity, unless the one who was damaged was not engaged in said activity. I believe this is called "clean hands doctrine", and this is one reason why drugs should be legal, as street justice would not be the only course of confict resolution.

Notice, that the innocent victim sued the drunk driver, and the driver's estate sued the bar. I do not believe it could go any other way because the innocent driver was not damaged by the bar, only the driver.
My work here is, finally, done.