Thoughts on "The Jennifer Act"?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Hmm, imprisoning people without charge for a year?

No thanks.

[oakvale]

I don't support this. I pretty much agree with what Franzl's been saying - I'll have some actual original thoughts later though.

[Senator Napoleon]

Another day posting, another discussion where good people who believe in freedom have to help Antonio realize he is essentially a social conservative.

[Simfan34]

I absolutely support it.  It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.

[Californian Tony]

Another day posting, another discussion where good people who believe in freedom have to help Antonio realize he is essentially a social conservative.

Thanks for giving your thoughtful contribution to the debate.

[Senator Napoleon]

Another day posting, another discussion where good people who believe in freedom have to help Antonio realize he is essentially a social conservative.

Thanks for giving your thoughtful contribution to the debate.

Considering the debate here basically started with my post, thank you.

[shua]

I absolutely support it.  It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.

Are you serious? As a general philosophical standpoint, who's to say what's stupid and what isn't? That presumes omniscience on the part of those in power.
It's one thing to say that someone should be able to step in when someone's judgment has been compromised though an addiction.
But saying people aren't ever allowed to make stupid decisions is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.

[Simfan34]

I absolutely support it.  It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.

Are you serious? As a general philosophical standpoint, who's to say what's stupid and what isn't? That presumes omniscience on the part of those in power.
It's one thing to say that someone should be able to step in when someone's judgment has been compromised though an addiction.
But saying people aren't ever allowed to make stupid decisions is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.

Well, I do not claim omniscience, but I can tell you that the effects of drugs such as these are greatly detrimental to one's health and general well-being. Why should I, in good conscience, allow a friend to do something that would hurt or harm themselves, that, if they were fully informed of the consequences, would not do? Such a belief is a logical extension of that. Totaliarianism? I'd call it Hobbesian paternalism.

[oakvale]

I absolutely support it.  It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.

Are you serious? As a general philosophical standpoint, who's to say what's stupid and what isn't? That presumes omniscience on the part of those in power.
It's one thing to say that someone should be able to step in when someone's judgment has been compromised though an addiction.
But saying people aren't ever allowed to make stupid decisions is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.

Well, I do not claim omniscience, but I can tell you that the effects of drugs such as these are greatly detrimental to one's health and general well-being. Why should I, in good conscience, allow a friend to do something that would hurt or harm themselves, that, if they were fully informed of the consequences, would not do?

Because they're an individual and ultimately responsible for their own decisions?

[Senator Napoleon]

Who are you to
A. Decide what is best for someone else's well-being
B. Assume one does not know and accept the consequences of their own decision??

[Senator Napoleon]

Upon reading the bill, this may just be the worst proposal I've seen since "patent reform" made its debut.

[Simfan34]

I absolutely support it.  It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.

Are you serious? As a general philosophical standpoint, who's to say what's stupid and what isn't? That presumes omniscience on the part of those in power.
It's one thing to say that someone should be able to step in when someone's judgment has been compromised though an addiction.
But saying people aren't ever allowed to make stupid decisions is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.

Well, I do not claim omniscience, but I can tell you that the effects of drugs such as these are greatly detrimental to one's health and general well-being. Why should I, in good conscience, allow a friend to do something that would hurt or harm themselves, that, if they were fully informed of the consequences, would not do?

Because they're an individual and ultimately responsible for their own decisions?

Surely it would be remiss of me not to try to help them? Vague ideas of "responsibility" aside, I care for them and would want to help them. That is the essence of the matter.

Who are you to
A. Decide what is best for someone else's well-being
B. Assume one does not know and accept the consequences of their own decision??

A. When such a course is obviously wrong, such as jumping off a cliff or shooting a random person, I feel like I can draw a conclusion on what is best in such a situation. If a friend is addicted to a drug and his life is being drawn away by it, I think that it's fairly clear that it's for his good that action be taken before he dies. Does he want to die? Likely not. If a person takes an action but wants a different result than that will occur, then something should be done. I don't believe in moral relativism.

B. Are you telling me that drug addicts want to become addicted and mentally and physically ill? Those who commit suicide don't usually want to die, they want to end their suffering and the misery they encounter in their life. I want to combat the misery and suffering, and they may not see the way to end it. So yes, many times, they don't know.

[Senator Napoleon]

Shooting a random person is not the same thing as using drugs. Fail. You are relying on subjectivity to make an arguement that should be given an objective and logical rationale.

[Simfan34]

Shooting a random person is not the same thing as using drugs. Fail. You are relying on subjectivity to make an arguement that should be given an objective and logical rationale.

I thought we were speaking on broader terms here. Sorry. Unless you want to dispute the harmful effects of drugs, I don't think you can say that they are somehow ambiguous in their effect. And I return to my prior point (I wasn't entirely subjective, you see).  If a person is addicted to a drug and his life is being drawn away by it, I think that it's fairly clear that it's for his good that action be taken before he dies. Does he start taking drugs thinking "I'm going to slowly  drain my life away! Hurray!" If he does, he doesn't value his life and is foolish for not doing so. Most people, however don't think that way, and never do as their addiction deepens.

[Senator Napoleon]

Have you read the law?

[Simfan34]

The summary, yes.

[Californian Tony]

Simfan, don't waste your time trying to discuss with stubborn hacks like Napoleon. Life is much better if you just ignore them.

[Gustaf]

In general I do believe people have a right to make bad decisions for themselves as long as it does not harm others too much.

However, depending on what kind of addiction we're talking about, it's arguable whether you're making your own decisions anymore. If I'm addicted to a hard drug like heroin does it really make sense to talk of my "decision" to care about nothing else in the world and betray everyone I know to get more of my drug? I'm not convinced on that point.

Angus is making a fair point though, so I can't say I support the bill.

[Jayhawker]

My main goal in creating this thread was to see opposing sides of the argument, and that goal was accomplished, though it's disappointing to see people take such a negative and abrasive turn. Not every debate has to turn into a war of wards.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I absolutely support it.  It goes with my general philosophical standpoint that people, as a matter of principle, should not be able to make stupid decisions, and if they do, the power should exist to correct them.

Are you serious? As a general philosophical standpoint, who's to say what's stupid and what isn't? That presumes omniscience on the part of those in power.
It's one thing to say that someone should be able to step in when someone's judgment has been compromised though an addiction.
But saying people aren't ever allowed to make stupid decisions is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.

Well, I do not claim omniscience, but I can tell you that the effects of drugs such as these are greatly detrimental to one's health and general well-being. Why should I, in good conscience, allow a friend to do something that would hurt or harm themselves, that, if they were fully informed of the consequences, would not do? Such a belief is a logical extension of that. Totaliarianism? I'd call it Hobbesian paternalism.

Because different people prioritize different aspects of life and hold different subjective ideas on the benefits of taking risk upon themselves. What I'm saying is that you cannot impose your ideals of life on someone who wants to live a hedonistic one, that's fundamentally immoral and imposing your worldview on your friends. How would you like it if I forced everyone to smoke marijuana because I find it to be beneficial and well worth the risks and considered anyone who didn't smoke it to be lifeless pussies with no penchant for enjoying themselves?

What, should be ban storm chasing, surfing, snow boarding, driving cars and going outdoors because it could be detrimental to people's general health and well being at times? It's up to the individual to decide what is healthy for themselves and what is not, and what constitutes sufficient risk to stop their activity. Well in an ideal world it would be entirely up to the individual.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

No, no, no.  Bad idea.  Rehab does not stick unless the individual wants to be off the drug.  If the Jennifer Act had been in place, I'd conjecture that after exiting rehab Jennifer would have done the following:
1) Never talked to her parents again, and
2) Go right back to drinking, and doing more of it.

[Mynheer Peeperkorn von Thurn und Taxis-Hohenlohe]

I didn't know it was possible to die with an overdose of Alprazolam.

[Link]

What precisely does it do?

Increase costs and government regulation.

[Link]

I didn't know it was possible to die with an overdose of Alprazolam.

yup.

Alprazolam is a benzodiazepine.

[Mynheer Peeperkorn von Thurn und Taxis-Hohenlohe]

I didn't know it was possible to die with an overdose of Alprazolam.

yup.

Alprazolam is a benzodiazepine.

I know, but it's not clonazepam.