[bizorky]

ok you are connecting what I wrote about addiction with "banning" of VLT's.

The thread is/was about VLT's. If addictive behaviours are connected to other problems, then how is access to VLT's the cause of addictions? What about those other "problems?" Also, VLT's are already controlled, except when they are illegally distributed.

Again, VLT's are a game of chance like other forms of gambling. If a person bets on a sport, or plays poker or bets on horses, they are playing a game of chance. Some people will become "addicted" to these games. How do we ban them all to protect those potential "victims?" Or do we rely on individuals to make choices for themselves?

Fine, blaming the "victim" does not do anything helpful, but who exactly is victimizing these individuals when they are making a choice to play the game in the first place?

 

[Fighting Madd]

Everyone's a victim today it seems. At the risk of going OT, whenever some kid(s) shoots up a school somewhere they always say he was a "victim" of bullying. From the moment you wake up in the morning you are 100% responsible and accountable for your actions, period.

 

[cdl42]

One shouldn't always assume that just because someone is identified as a victim that it is an attempt to abdicate responsibility. Following a tragedy it is human nature to ask "why?" and search for an explanation as to what could drive an individual to carrying out terrible deeds. Just because being a victim may be identified as an explanation for the crime it doesn't mean that it is a justification.

I can't think of a single case where someone got off from a great crime simply because they were a victim; such explanations don't hold much weight in our legal system (well, maybe a victim of "insanity" has worked). The question asked in a courtroom is whether one is guilty of a deed or innocent of it, not whether the deed was justified.

I guess staying on topic, maybe a look at the Dutch concept of minimising negative effects is worthwhile. Legalise gambling, but make sure that a proper support structure exists for those people who end up having issues (paid for by the gambling revenues, of course). We know that some people will end up having problems. They certainly shouldn't get their money back, but counselling to remind that person that they need to be responsible for their actions and change their behaviour and help them find a way to fill the hole that gambling was filling is only reasonable IMO.

 

[Fighting Madd]

Legalise gambling, but make sure that a proper support structure exists for those people who end up having issues

That's a good suggestion, likely the best approach.

 

[1Voltaire1]

IMO, it's time for people to take 100% responsbility for their own actions. Why expect governments to save you whenever you screw up your life. The vast majority of people gamble a little and then stop. If you blow your food money on gambling, that's your problem.

While I agree that individuals should be - ultimately - responsible for their own actions, its a little simplistic to suggest that if an individual acts in a negative way that its solely his or her problem. If an individual has a negative behaviour, say for example an addiction, the individual possesses the addiction. As such, the individual is responsible for their behaviour. However, quite clearly, given the social nature of man, the addiction the individual possesses can often negatively affect others; at which point in time the addiction becomes the other's (possessive) problem too, irrespective of whether or not they possess the addiction (directly). Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in an autonomous liberal world, with autonomous liberal people, doing autonomous liberal things, but such a portrayal of the world would be a mere caricature.

But then, why not demand that government ban smoking, alcohol and anything else that will do you harm when in access?

Then we should legalize all narcotics? Cocaine, Crank, Heroin, Angel Dust? Acid, Ecstasy, shrooms? Or just Marijuana and its byproducts? Perhaps you would support a harm reduction program? Or perhaps we should just legalize and "let the chips fall where they may"? :lol (excuse the irony)

 

[Fighting Madd]

Then we should legalize all narcotics? Cocaine, Crank

Yes, let's legalize Crank! :O

 

[1Voltaire1]

Yes, let's legalize Crank! :O

I thought you would be in support of the legalization of, at the very least, Marijuana and its various byproducts - obvious arguments against the legalization of Crank, including (potential) instantaneous death aside. After all, if individuals are responsible for their own actions, and the government should not intervene and prevent people from doing potential harm to themselves, then presumably narcotics should be legalized - or at the very least certain narcotics.

 

[Fighting Madd]

I have to ask, what exactly is crank?

 

[1Voltaire1]

meth amphetamine

 

[bizorky]

I can't think of a single case where someone got off from a great crime simply because they were a victim

Karla Homolka comes to mind.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

^ If you call 12 years in prison and being forced to live the rest of your life like Julia Roberts in "Sleeping With the Enemy" getting off.

 

[Fighting Madd]

meth amphetamine

Isn't that made by mixing household cleaning liquids? If so, you can't even begin to stop it through the courts. Might as well legalize it.

 

[1Voltaire1]

Isn't that made by mixing household cleaning liquids? If so, you can't even begin to stop it through the courts. Might as well legalize it.

I think Psuedoephedrine, a common ingredient in antihistamines, is one of the main chemicals used in its production. Apparently "authorities" are having quite a hard time controlling its manufacture. All I know is I wouldn't want to be sitting in a house next to where someone is producing the stuff as the chemicals involved and the production process are supposedly quite a volatile mix. This being said, I don't suppose meth labs would be like "grow-ops" in that they would be located in the middle of residential neighbourhoods. The production process emits a lot of odors, due to the obvious need for ventilation, that are hard to mask. Consequently crowded neighbourhoods are probably not the best idea, from a criminal perspective, if your trying to evade the law while producing your drugs.

Personally, I'm a little reluctant to follow the logic of individual responsibility all the way from VLTs to Speed. VLTs won't turn you into a paranoid schizophrenic. Although my compunctions with the legalization of hard narcotics certainly would be abated if I knew that substantive and demonstrable benefits could be gained from legalization - both for the individual and for society.

Quite clearly, governments can't control illegal narcotics, the best they can hope for is to mitigate the extent of their pervasiveness. So the question for me becomes, does direct government control of, or indirect regulation of, hard narcotics, limit the extent of or effect of hard drug use within society? I wonder this because though an individual may be responsible for their own drug use, it still affects me.

 

[bizorky]

If you call 12 years in prison and being forced to live the rest of your life like Julia Roberts in "Sleeping With the Enemy" getting of

She was not jailed for the crimes she actually committed. Those came to light only after the fact. Maybe you missed that part. Part of her original defence was the "battered wife syndrome." Some people still accept this argument. That is what I am making reference to. It was in all the papers a while back.

 

[cdl42]

Bizorky...

I said "got off from a great crime simply because they were a victim". This is referring to an individual being found innocent of charges brought against them due to their "being a victim". No such thing happened with Karla. As you point out, she was not jailed for the crimes she actually committed and surely her being a 'victim' helped her negotiate a reduced sentence, but she was still found guilty of the charges brought against her, and as such, did not "get off".