The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Controversial issues that aren't (to you)
Yann
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I have never been all that interested in politics. Having grown up in Sweden, a country where pretty much everything "works", ie we have no obvious social problems unless you really look for them, I have never felt a great need to. Politics were mostly boring, people discussing percentages and minor details.
Recently I have started to take a greater interest, mostly due to the Swedish governments impressive fuckup of the private sector and employment rates for youths. I've started reading a lot more about politics both in Sweden and internationally, and have started to notice some very surprising things.
Many things I take for obvious are considered controversial, even by people in super liberal Sweden. I'll give some examples:
Religion in politics
This may be obvious, since I mentioned Sweden. My parents put zero religious pressure on me. I was born into the Swedish Christian church, but I was not baptized and was free to leave it whenever I wanted to (which I have). In school when we had religion in class, every religion was treated exactly the same. Emphasis was put on religious freedom but also that religion should stay the hell away from politics. A week ago Sweden almost sent a creationist minister to the European parliament. And we are one of the most secular nations in the world! Internationally, it seems far far worse.
In short: We should base our society around scientific and humane principles, not on religion. How is this a controversy?
Drugs are bad
While growing up I have come into contact with drugs. My experiences with them have been in almost laughable contrast to the information that I received about them from school and from society. I have meet and gotten to know many users of light drugs (cannabis), but I have never met an abuser. I have no doubt that drugs can do horrible things to a person, but I do question the ways we deal with the problem. Sweden is actually behind the curve here in Europe, Portugal being the prime example.
In short: Fear of prison drives addicts underground and incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? How is this controversial?
Prostitution laws
Pretty much the same argument here. I happen to live in New Zealand at the moment, a country with some of the most liberal sex worker laws. Apparently they now have some of the best conditions for sex workers in the world, yet prostitution hasn't expanded noticeably. In Sweden, not even the feminist movement is in favor of legalization.
In short: Decriminalize to remove underground prostitution, regulate the business to minimize harm to sex workers. How is this controversial?
I'm gonna stop here, but there are plenty of more examples. What is the deal here? Are these things really considered controversial by politicians? If not, why isn't that reflected in policy?
Recently I have started to take a greater interest, mostly due to the Swedish governments impressive fuckup of the private sector and employment rates for youths. I've started reading a lot more about politics both in Sweden and internationally, and have started to notice some very surprising things.
Many things I take for obvious are considered controversial, even by people in super liberal Sweden. I'll give some examples:
Religion in politics
This may be obvious, since I mentioned Sweden. My parents put zero religious pressure on me. I was born into the Swedish Christian church, but I was not baptized and was free to leave it whenever I wanted to (which I have). In school when we had religion in class, every religion was treated exactly the same. Emphasis was put on religious freedom but also that religion should stay the hell away from politics. A week ago Sweden almost sent a creationist minister to the European parliament. And we are one of the most secular nations in the world! Internationally, it seems far far worse.
In short: We should base our society around scientific and humane principles, not on religion. How is this a controversy?
Drugs are bad
While growing up I have come into contact with drugs. My experiences with them have been in almost laughable contrast to the information that I received about them from school and from society. I have meet and gotten to know many users of light drugs (cannabis), but I have never met an abuser. I have no doubt that drugs can do horrible things to a person, but I do question the ways we deal with the problem. Sweden is actually behind the curve here in Europe, Portugal being the prime example.
In short: Fear of prison drives addicts underground and incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? How is this controversial?
Prostitution laws
Pretty much the same argument here. I happen to live in New Zealand at the moment, a country with some of the most liberal sex worker laws. Apparently they now have some of the best conditions for sex workers in the world, yet prostitution hasn't expanded noticeably. In Sweden, not even the feminist movement is in favor of legalization.
In short: Decriminalize to remove underground prostitution, regulate the business to minimize harm to sex workers. How is this controversial?
I'm gonna stop here, but there are plenty of more examples. What is the deal here? Are these things really considered controversial by politicians? If not, why isn't that reflected in policy?
Yann on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Oh man, did you get strung out on heroin? Goody boy, have a pick me up cookie. If you do drugs, you (can) fuck up your body. Why should the tax payer help you?
How was religion taught in your school? That will say a lot as to the differences.
Actually, while people really like to blame the old costumed white dude routine for Alf Svensson's victory since he was the ninth name and Ella Bohlin the first name, you can just as easily blame it on her being a creationist.
Either way, it's a prime example of the party head honchos crafting a list of their own preferred names, ignoring the trial votes, and then tossing in Alf somewhere down the middle to placate the masses... and then having the masses rebel and vote said dude instead.
Controversial non-issue to me: gays in the military. So what?
what the hell
And fuck them smokers and fat people too.
it's kind of a sound argument.
getting in to drugs is a personal choice (yes, addiction may be beyond one's control, but you still CHOSE to take the drug those first few times)
so why should the tax payer have to carry the burden for folks who CHOSE to hurt themselves?
That's how this is a controversy.
There are quite a few people who would agree on all three fronts.
If a dude chooses to eat until he weighs five hundred pounds, why should anyone other than him have to pay for his treatment. And if he can't afford treatment, he shouldn't have chosen to do this to himself.
I'm not saying I agree with that line. I'm just pointing out that it does have some theoretical merit.
I see it as a question of how much respect you have for your fellow humanity.
no health care for smokers or obese people then right? they chose to hurt themselves, after all
Not saying there isn't one and you are stoopid, but I'm curious. I promise to respect our differences!
love
The following, though, are some examples of issues that are highly stratified but which should, IMO, be no brainers for an educated adult in a first world country:
-the nonexistence of God
-the right of gays to marry
-the principle of self-defense
-racism is bad
Gay marriage.
Gay marriage is legal in this country. It's not only legal, but non-heterosexuals can even serve openly in our military and a few years back we had our first gay military wedding.
It's not an issue I hear about in the news, generally. It's not a thing Canadian political pundits talk about. It's not an issue that conservative politicians rally people around.
It's something that just exists and people don't seem to care about it very much. None of my friends or family seem to opine on it, and it's not a conversation topic that comes up even amongst those members of my family and my friends who enjoy lively debate and argument about controversial things.
And then I look at the gathering storm in the United States about this issue and I am like "What the hell is the big deal, guys?"
your post is a gross misstatement of what we actually do when we order drug addicts into treatment in the criminal system and belies some sort of attitude that society shouldn't seek to help people who have entered into a cycle of self destructive behavior but should just let them continue to wallow because they don't deserve our money much less our respect
but this ain't really a drug thread so
just goes to show it's not that surprising to have this subject be a controversial one
I see what you're saying, but there is a discrepancy in my head I can't quite word. Maybe its a matter of how much help is freely available and to whom. Case by case basis... I don't know. I'm not a policy maker. But I do initially have issues with paying for someone who hurt themselves dropping acid. But assuming they pay taxes, they are paying for it too.
I'm confused.
I'm not saying no health care. I don't mind paying to help people get over the flu, infections, asthma, cancer (lung cancer in a smoker, I don't know since I'm not thinking this through all the way), blahblahblah, but shit thats pretty much self inflicted?
I dunno... I never thought about it a lot.
"...incarceration is more expensive than treatment..."
Use my tax money efficiently please.
Make what you will of "equally valid."
Playing devil's advocate here, I would ask why I should have any more respect for a man than he has for himself.
The money that goes towards attempting to rehabilitate recidivist drug users could instead be going towards education, or to NASA, or to something else with more merit, no?
dude, just stop
Fuck you people, those of you who think this.
Drug addiction is a complicated issue and the people who do find themselves as addicts didn't get that way because they one day decided to step outside their white picket fence life and say "boy howdy, I'm going to start doing heroin for kicks!"
To show a stone heart towards addicts is basically to turn your back on the poor, the mentally ill, and the psychologically troubled. I think that makes you a fucking bastard.
But, then, I also believe in government-run health care (which my country, thank God, has) so I am not okay with letting suffering human beings twist in the wind because "well, it's their fault".
But maybe some of you people are son of a bitch Ron Paul libertarians who think that everyone should just pull themselves up by their fucking boot-straps and get their heads on straight and just stop doing drugs.
Fuck you people, seriously.
I needed professional help to deal with my drug addiction issues, and it was certainly not something I was economically able to pay for, so the government (and by extension, the taxpayers) helped me repair my broken life.
Social Darwinists and libertarians and objectivists can all die in fucking car fires. You people are hurting human civilization.
Don't hate me 'cause I'm clinically depressed, man.
Again, if money was the issue: "...incarceration is more expensive than treatment..."
Goddamn it, I need to really think about this stuff now.
Course if someone seeks out help, different situation.
they need help, yes, but government funds don't come out of nowhere.
How would you feel about creating institutions to house these people in? If we are deeming them to be incapable of taking care of themselves, then we can't rightfully leave them in their own care, no?
Some politicians do.
I can't say that your average Albertan does, because to be honest, I don't spend a great deal of time talking to Albertans.
But Alberta politicians have in the recent past used gay marriage and efforts to take our current gay marriage laws apart into an issue of their platform.
Stephen Harper even did it the election before last, threatening to use the notwithstanding clause as a way to outlaw the gay marriages we currently allow.
But after two successive minority governments, Harper and his folk have shut the fuck up about that.
I'd feel like we already have those and they are vastly underfunded
Why waste the money getting speeding/drunk drivers out of their wrecked cars? may as well just let them die there, they chose to put themselves at risk, same goes for their passengers, they made a choice to get in the car with a moron. Why give fat people heart surgery? they chose to eat shitloads of crap food and get fat, they can die as well. Same goes for smokers with cancer. The problem is that such a massive amount of things that happen to people that result in them needing health care are the result of choices that they have made at some point and is either indirectly or directly their own fault. Denying care on this basis is not only immoral but would likely destroy society.
how is incarceration more expensive than treatment? I don't need exact figures, just an explaination (like how the death penalty is more expensive because of appeals)
what is it that makes incarceration more expensive.
also, how many drug users would neccesitate incarceration if left untreated, versus the number who would simply die?
How about this: when people need help, they should get it.
It doesn't matter who's fault it is, it doesn't matter if it was on purpose or accidental, and it doesn't matter if they got there because they're stupid or weak or foolish or made a terrible mistake.
The question should not be "should we or should we not give these people help?" That answer is always yes. The question is prioritizing who gets help. What will alleviate the most suffering? Drug addiction is a pretty enormous problem, as is obesity. These people need help, and they should get it.
allowing people to sponge isn't great for society either, though.
Evander, I know you are playing Shit-Head's Advocate here so I am going to give you a little leeway here.
But really, if you are against socialized medicine, then being against government-help for drug addicts is an internally consistent position.
It also, in my opinion, makes you a heartless bastard with shit for ethics.
But, if you support government-run health care, drawing a line at helping addicts help themselves makes you a hypocritical asshole who needs to shut the fuck up.
So, take your own stand on it. Don't try to stir the pot by expressing poor opinions. Not all devils need advocates.
Smarten up.
Allowing 2% to sponge while helping the remaining 98% that need it is totally worth it.
Figures pulled out of my ass, in case I actually have to clarify this.
actually, we don't really have those. we've been getting rid of those over time, which I personally do support in all honesty
but as I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and within that part, I would argue that if some one does not contribute to society in any way, and in fact costs money to society through conscious choices of their own, why should society have to pay for it, when that money could be goign elsewhere?
building prisons, paying guards, running the prison, large prison populations
and the fact that when you go to prison for drugs you likely aren't getting ANY treatment at all
as to your second question, we don't really know, because we don't just fucking let the ones with tracks in their arms die when they show up in the ER
The bolded was a given, I thought.
If you want my personal platform, I personally support socialized medicine, so OF COURSE I support helping junkies.
But I feel like too many people are simply overlooking the arena of "personal responsibility." Especially when you bring recidivists in to the equation.
The rehab programs do succeed, and often. All the time? Of course not. But, those who stick with the whole program and don't give up and really do want to get help, they generally come out with a better handle on their lives and are able to address the underlying causes of their addiction.
Just speaking of the guys who I went through rehab with, the majority of them (with, two to my knowledge exceptions) were able to kick their addictions and destructive usage and bettered themselves.
So, to decry these programs when they really do help people makes you a shitty human being and just another pussbag who frets about wasted tax dollars at the expense of basic ethics
i believe that incarceration is more expensive because you must spend money on the following
law enforcement resources - cops, sting operations, nation-wide FBI mobilization, international intervention
trials, appeals, lawyers, etc
prison time for the years and years for each individual, including food, clothing, education and training, psychological evaluation and counselling
and that time is either very long and thus extremely expensive per individual, or it is short and it only delays the repeat of the problem, resulting in another arrest, resulting in more prison-associated expenditure.
rehab is expensive because it requires buildings, resources for food and clothing and counselling, and trained staff for various other things. however, less people will probably go to rehab, since it is voluntary, and I don't know how long it takes to get clean from something like heroin, but it probably doesn't measure up to a long term, multiple-offense prison sentence.