No illegal drugs in Amy Winehouse.

[Phanerothyme]

Ask the Home Secretary for the details, I just agree we need a line.

 

If we allow people to fill their veins with, say, heroin, why do we bother to force people to use seatbelts? Or safety goggles at work? Should it just be their own choice to mess themselves up?

 

You agree there needs to be a line and you'd be happy, wherever it was drawn by the Home Secretary?

 

If we allow people to fill their blood with, say, alcohol, why do we bother to force people to use seatbelts? I would have thought the answer was obvious.

[Conrod]

You agree there needs to be a line and you'd be happy, wherever it was drawn by the Home Secretary?

 

If we allow people to fill their blood with, say, alcohol, why do we bother to force people to use seatbelts? I would have thought the answer was obvious.

I don't agree with the detail of every law, but I accept them because I'm not an anarchist, or a criminal.

 

People who choose to use illegal drugs choose to be criminals - it's as simple as that.

 

As for turning the heroin/seatbelt question into alcohol/seatbelts, it's weak debating to answer a question with a question - that too is obvious.

[Jessica23]

So it is - can't you see that makes all the difference?

[...] I also drink, and at times in the past have had one too many - but I wasn't breaking the law. The whole point is that a line must be drawn somewhere on what is, and what is not, legal. Those who choose to cross that line are taking a big step, and in the case of illegal drug use it's a step into a seedy, degenerate world. [...]

 

And my point is that the line as it is currently drawn is entirely arbitrary. Well, not entirely arbitrary (it's there for a whole host of historical reasons) but in terms of public health.

 

Either alcohol and tobacco should be made illegal, or everything else should be decriminalised for the current policy to make any sense. I'm sure you can guess which one I'd prefer, but either would be preferable to the current system - which allows people who knowingly intoxicate themselves on a dangerous drug every Friday night without fail to take an entirely spurious moral high ground about people who use illegal drugs.

 

And in the case of illegal drug use, it is not always a step into a seedy, degenerate world at all. Tell that to the Tory-voting grandma who uses marijuana for arthritis relief, for example.

[mort]

Any further bickering will result in suspension. Now back on topic please.

[Phanerothyme]

It may be weak debating (at least it is debating, rather than criticising the form of debate and avoiding your own question), but indulge me - why do we insist on seatbelts but not on sobriety?

 

If alcohol could be successfully made illegal, the number of lives saved and harm avoided would outstrip lives saved and harm avoided by seatbelts by a hundred to one.

 

Why do we allow dangerous sports like rugby and climbing and horseriding, but ban safer pursuits?

 

If the Home Secretary put all the substances in a hat and pulled three out at random, declaring the rest illegal, that would be good enough for you?

 

And do you accept that citizens/subjects have the right, and indeed the responsibility to change and revoke bad laws?

 

Or do you believe there is no such thing as a bad law?

[alchresearch]

So you might want to alter your opinion on Winehouse with the knowledge that the American Medical Association 'endorses the proposition that drug dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases and that their treatment is a legitimate part of medical practice', then.

 

I would define a disease as something that can be contracted by anyone without their knowledge or power.

 

Putting drugs into your body, legal or otherwise, is certainly avoidable.

[Jessica23]

I would define a disease as something that can be contracted by anyone without their knowledge or power.

 

Putting drugs into your body, legal or otherwise, is certainly avoidable.

 

Well, call me in thrall to the establishment but I'll take the AMA's definition over yours, I think. Purely on account of their expertise, nothing personal.

[alchresearch]

Why do you need to use the AMA to support your argument and not the BMA?

 

Maybe you should take a better look at the AMA. Its been proven wrong before and the current view of US physicians is that they feel it does not support the majority of them and their views (only about 20% of US physicians are members and many are not members on principle.)

 

Perhaps the WHO would be a better source?

[crookesey]

I note that the folk on the original thread relating to her tragic death, who called her everything from a pig to a dog, are strangely missing from this one.

[Billy Casper]

I note that the folk on the original thread relating to her tragic death, who called her everything from a pig to a dog, are strangely missing from this one.

 

She filled her body with drugs and alcohol until her frail little frame could take no more. As sad as it is, this is what killed her. Had she never taken drugs or drank copious amounts of alcohol, she would still be here now and probably for many many years to come, and although i was never a huge fan of hers she would have been a big hit in the music industry for however long she wanted.